- (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, M/s. D. Macropollo and Co. (Private) Ltd., and Respondent No. 1, its workmen as represented by D. Macropollo and Co. (Private) Ltd., Employees' Union. On 31-5-1957, this dispute was referred to the First Labour Court by the Government of West Bengal under Ss. 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV of 1947). The two questions which were referred to the Labour Court were: (1) Is the termination of services of the fourteen workmen (whose names were given in the reference) justified and (2) what relief were the discharged employees entitled to Before the Labour Court, the Employees' Union urged that the discharge of the fourteen employees amounted to an act of victimisation and unfair labour practice. On the other hand, the appellant urged that the discharged employees were not workmen within the meaning of the Act and so the reference made by the Government of West Bengal was invalid. It was also contended by the appellant that the impugned discharge of the fourteen employees was not at all an unfair labour practice; it was in fact a bona fide act on the part of the appellant inasmuch as the said discharge was a part of the scheme of re-organisation of its business adopted by the appellant since 1954. The Labour Court rejected both these contentions. It held that the discharged employees were workmen within the meaning of the Act and so the reference made to it was valid; and it found that the appellant terminated the services of the workmen in question "as a matter of unfair labour practice and thus victimised them for their union activities." In the result, the court ordered that the twelve workmen should be re-instated together with their back wages. This award was delivered on 11-10-1957, and it was duly published by the Government of West Bengal on 19-10-1957. It is the validity of this award that is challenged before us by the appellant in the present appeal.
(2.) It would be relevant at this stage to refer to the material facts leading to the present dispute. The appellant is a private limited company with its head office at Bombay and its branches in Delhi and Calcutta. The main business of the appellant is the selling agency of various cigarette manufacturing concerns. The appellant is the sole selling agent of Godfrey Phillips who is one of the said manufacturers. The appellant thus sells cigarettes, cigars, manufactured tobacco and smokers' requisites of other manufacturers. Prior to 1946, in Calcutta the outdoor salesmen who sold cigarettes on behalf of the appellant were in the employ of the appellant's distributor; but in 1946 owing to communal riots this method of distribution and sale had to be terminated. The appellant then took the outdoor salesmen in its direct employment in order to organise them on communal basis in the then prevailing circumstances. These outdoor salesmen had to take a quantity of packets of two brands of cigarettes from the appellant's distributor and sell them to the local Panwalas and petty dealers. At the end of the day's work, the unsold stock had to be returned by the salesmen to the distributor and the prices recovered by them for the sales effected during the course of the day had to be paid to him. In or about 1954 the appellant came to the conclusion that it was not practicable from business point of view to continue any longer its own outdoor sales department and so the appellant decided to close down the said department, to retrench the outdoor salesmen and to operate through the distributors. Pursuant to this decision, the system of employing outdoor salesmen under the direct employment of the appellant was terminated in Bombay and Delhi in 1954. The appellant realised that the sales were dropping and that the re-organisation of its business had become necessary as a measure of economy. For convenience, however, the re-organisation was brought into force by stages in different places from time to time. The Calcutta area of the appellant's business comprised of Assam, Bihar, Orissa, a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of West Bengal. The appellant had been terminating the services of its outdoor salesmen in this area since 1954, Salesmen whose services were discharged under this re-organisation of the appellant's business were being employed by the appellant's distributors in their respective areas. This scheme was implemented by the appellant last of all in Calcutta by writing letters of discharge to its fourteen outdoor salesmen on 7-2-1957. These salesmen were informed that their services were terminated as from 11-2-1957, and that they would receive one month's salary in lieu of notice and half month's salary per year of service by way of compensation. The salesmen were also told that the appellant was recommending to its distributor in Calcutta to give them the first option of employment under him, on terms, and conditions to be settled between them inter se. The distributor was agreeable to take up in his service the fourteen outdoor salesmen thus discharged by the appellant, but only two of them, S. C. Datta and S. C. Ghose (respondents 2 and 3), approached the distributor and obtained appointments from him. Since the other salesmen did not approach the distributor, he waited for some time and ultimately appointed other persons in the course of the next three months. It is under these circumstances that the respondents-union raised an industrial dispute with the appellant in respect of the termination of services of its fourteen outdoor salesmen. The two salesmen who have been employed by the distributor appeared before the Labour Court and informed the Court that they were not interested in the dispute and that the union was not authorised by them to represent their case before the court.
(3.) The case for respondent No. 1 was that the appellant's plea of re-organisation is not genuine, that there was no economic justification for adopting the said scheme and that the sole object of the appellant in discharging the employees in question was to penalise them for their trade union activities. It appears that the employees of the appellant formed a trade union in July 1953. Respondent No. 1 urged that the appellant was enraged by the formation of the trade union and it consistently refused to accord recognition to the union. The union presented its "character of demands" and that provoked the appellant still more. The union tried to approach the appellant with a view to settle its demands but the appellant resisted all such efforts and ultimately issued letters to the employees terminating their services with a view to put an end to the agitation which the union was carrying on against the appellant. The discharge of the employees is thus an unfair labour practice and amounts to victimisation of the employees in question. It is on these contentions that the Labour Court had to consider the two questions, already indicated.;