S. R. Das, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, dated 18-11-1954 which was made on an application made by the appellant company on 6-9-1954 under S. 22, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (Act 48 of 1950) which is hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act.
(2.) The appellant company carries on business as assemblers of motor vehicles from "completely knocked down" assemblies imported into India. There was some appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal arising out of, disputes between the appellant company and its workmen. It is alleged that the name of the appellant company had been removed by the Government of India from the list of approved manufacturers maintained by them and that, in the result, it had been unable to secure further import licenses for the import of completely knocked down assemblies of motor vehicles and that consequently on and from 1-11-1953 the company had to lay off a number of its workmen, for it had to operate the various departments of its factory at greatly reduced strength. As the appellant company saw no prospect of any increase in the scope of its present operation which would provide employment for the workmen who had been laid off, it hod become necessary to retrench the workmen named in Annexure A to the application. As those workmen were concerned with the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal the company applied to the Appellate Tribunal under S. 22 of the 1950 Act for permission to retrench them.
(3.) The respondents through their Union, the Automobile Manufacturers' Employees' Association, Bombay, filed a written statement on 1-11-1954 making diverse allegations against the company and contending that the company had itself to blame for having brought about the lay of. It was contended that there was no immediate cause for making the application, that the company was motivated by to deprive the workmen of their dues which even according to the company would become due and payable to the workmen on the expiry of the one year of the said lay off period. It was further alleged that in or about April 1954 the company recalled some of the workmen out of those who had been laid off since November 1953 violating all principles on which a recall should have been made and that by such arbitrary and unscientific recall the company had imposed disproportionate work loads on the recalled workmen, thereby altering their conditions of service to their prejudice. The respondents maintained that the application was not maintainable in law, was 'mala fide' and should be dismissed. In the penultimate paragraph of the written statement it was submitted that in the event of the Labour Appellate Tribunal granting the permission in whole or in part such permission should be granted subject to the following conditions: (1) Payment of full wages with dearness allowance for the entire period of lay off; (2) Payment of one month's notice pay and retrenchment compensation at the rate of one month's wages including dearness allowance for every completed year of service and part thereof in addition to the gratuity as per the scheme in force in the company; (3) Alternatively to (2) above and in case the Labour Appellate Tribunal took the view that the lay off was governed by S. 25C, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, payment of compensation at 50 per cent. of their wages plus dearness allowance for the entire period of lay off to the date of discharge in addition to the notice pay and gratuity as claimed in (2) above; and (4) Payment of leave wages as per existing rules, taking the entire period of lay off as service. A number of documents were filed in support of the respective contentions.;