Desai, J. - (1.) Socio-economic justice, the cornerstone of industrial jurisprudence to be achieved by the process of give and take, concessions and adjustments of conflicting claims would hardly advance if the industrial dispute involved in this appeal by special leave brought by the appellant M/s. Avon Services (Production Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. canvassing some technical legal nicety rendering the two employees jobless for more than seven years is encouraged. A brief recital of a few facts touching upon the controversy would reveal the arena of dispute. The appellant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Fire Fighters Foam Compound. It has set up two factories, one at Bombay and the other at Ballabhgarh. The industrial dispute which is the subject-matter of appeal relates to Ballabhagarh factory. According to the appellant this factory, when commissioned in 1962, was divided into two sections, now styled as two separate undertakings; (i) manufacturing section; and (ii) packing material making section. The manufacturing section comprised two sub-sections, viz., the chemical section, i.e. Foam Compound manufacturing section, and the boiler section. The packing material section was again composed of two sub-sections, one manufacturing containers, and the other painting of the containers. Respondents 3 and 4 according to the appellant were employed in the painting section. Around 1964 the appellant decided to buy containers from the market and consequently closed down its packing material making section but continued the painting sub-section. On 13th July 1971 the appellant purported to serve a notice on respondents 3 and 4 and one Mr. Ramni intimating to them that the management has decided to close the painting section effective 13th July 1971 due to unavoidable circumstances and hence the services of the three workmen would no longer be required and, therefore, they are retrenched. Even though it is alleged that the notice was served upon the three workmen, the Tribunal found that the notice never reached respondents 3 and 4. By the notice the workmen concerned were also informed that they should collect their dues under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, from the office of the Company. Since 13th July 1971 respondents 3 and 4 have been denied employment by the appellant. A Trade Union of the employees of the appellant affiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh served a notice of demand, Annexure P-1 dated 16th July 1971 inter alia calling upon the appellant to reinstate respondents 3 and 4 and the third workmen and also to pay them full back wages. On 19th February 1972 as per Annexure P-2, the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Labour and Employment Department, intimated to the President of the Union that from amongst the demands contained in Annexure P-1, demands 2 to 9 have been referred to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. In respect of demand No. 1 relating to the reinstatement of the three workmen in the painting section, the reference was refused on the ground that there was no work for painting in the factory where these two workmen were working. This refusal to refer the demand concerning respondents 3 and 4 has been the subject-matter of a very serious submission on behalf of the Company that the reference subsequently made by the Government was invalid. To proceed further with the narrative, subsequently the Government of Haryana by its order dated 23rd November 1972 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:"Whether the retrenchment of Sarvashri Mohammed Yamin and Mohammad Yasin was justified and in order If not, to what relief they are entitled -
(2.) The Tribunal registered the reference at No. 81/72 and proceeded to adjudicate upon the dispute. Three issues were raised before the Tribunal and it is necessary to set down the three issues here in order to point out that one of the contentions raised at the hearing of this appeal was never put forth before the Tribunal. The issues framed by the Tribunal are: "1. Whether the present reference is bad in law for the reasons given in para No. 1 of the preliminary objection in the written statement (On management). 2. Whether the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workmen is not in order (On management). 3. Whether the retrenchment of Sarvashri Mohammed Yamin and Mohammad Yasin was justified and in order If not, to what relief they are entitled -
(3.) The management, in support of its contention covered by issue No. 1, urged before the Tribunal that once the Government declined to make a reference in respect of termination of service of respondents 3 and 4, the Government was not competent to refer the dispute for adjudication at a later date. The Tribunal negatived the contention observing that there is abundant authority in support of the proposition that the Government having once declined to make a reference, is not rendered incompetent from making a reference of the same dispute at a later date. Issue No. 2 was also answered against the appellant but as that contention was not raised before us, we need not go into the details if it. On issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that respondents 3 and 4 were retrenched and the case would squarely fall under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and as the appellant employer has not complied with the pre-condition laid down in S. 25F (a) and (b) of the Act, to wit, serving of one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice and payment of retrenchment compensation, the retrenchment was invalid. The Tribunal was further of the opinion that as both the workmen have been in service for 15 years or so, they could have been conveniently absorbed in some other department and, therefore, the retrenchment was unjustified. The Tribunal accordingly directed reinstatement of respondents 3 and 4 with full back wages.;