- (1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta setting aside the order of a Single Judge of that High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The facts relevant for this judgement may first be set out. The appellant company was at the relevant time carrying on business at various places in India including Calcutta as merchants, selling agents and manufacturers. Its registered office is at Madras. Its business at Calcutta was two-fold: (1) as selling agents of certain companies, and (2) of conducting an engineering workshop at Kidderprore. According to the company its agency business began to decline from 1954 and it had, therefore, to retrench some of its employees in the year. The company consequently decided upon a police of reorganising its business by giving accent to its manufacturing activities and of giving up the agencies held by it. In pursuance of the said policy, the company relinquished between April 1, 1960 and September 30, 1961, 13 agencies in Bombay, 11 in Delhi, 8 in Madras and 11 in Calcutta. It also closed down 3 of its branches in Northern India and 11 in South India. The total staff engaged at Calcutta consisted of 75 employees in the workshop at Kidderpore and 225 in the Branch office.
(3.) Apprehending that the said policy would result in retrenchment, the third respondent union wrote to the Deputy Labour Commissioner requesting him to intervene stating that the Board of Directors and the company had declared their police of surrendering agencies and that in the result the union feared that about 60 employees would be retrenched. The Deputy Commissioner called for the comments of the company's manager, who in his reply dated June 17, 1961 affirmed that the company had taken the said policy decision in consequence of which some of the employees would have to be retrenched. On June 20, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner held conciliation proceedings during which also manager made it clear that in pursuance of the policy of reorganising its business the company had decided to give up certain agencies. On June 23, 1961, the union sent to the company its demands inter alia claiming (a) that the retrenchment must be fully justified, and (b) that transfer of service to other places in the company's organisation should be offered to those who are willing to accept such transfer. Neither in its letter to the Deputy Commissioner nor in the conciliation proceedings, nor in the demands union disputed the fact that the company had taken the said policy decision and that the decision would result in retrenchment. Indeed, the said demands accepted the policy decision but called upon the company to pay certain amounts to those retrenched, to retrench only to the extent fully justified and to offer transfer to those retrenched. On June 28, 1961 the company sent its comments on the union's demands stating inter alia that (1) the company would pay one month's wages in lieu of notice as also retrenchment compensation, (2) that 85 permanent and 17 temporary employees would be retrenched with effect from July 1, 1961, (3) that re-employment of retrenched workmen would be governed by the provisions of Sec. 25-H, and (4) that the company's policy being to recruit local persons at its branches, transfer from one place to another had not been frequently resorted to by the company but the company would consider transfer of the employees concerned after employees retrenched at other branches had first been absorbed. On June 29, 1961, the company gave the notice of retrenchment to the employees concerned, also a notice to the Commissioner of Labour and the Conciliation Officer under Section 25-F (c), paid one month's wages to employees concerned in lieu of notice and also retrenchment compensation. The State Government by its order dated July 31, 1961, referred for adjudication to the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, the question whether retrenchment of the said 52 employees was justified and to what relief, if any, they were entitled.;