- (1.) The British India Corporation has filed this petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur, dated 15th Aug., 1973, directing the petitioner company to reinstate the respondent workmen and to pay arrears of back wages to them.
(2.) Rajkaran Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Rama Shanker and Ram Dayal were under the employment of the British India Corporation as Chaudikars in the Sutherland House, Civil Lines, Kanpur, where the Head Office of the Champaran Sugar Mills and Kanpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Units of British. India Corporation, were located. In 1970 the British India Corporation decided to sell Sutherland House building and to shift their office to the premises of Kanpur Woolen Mills. In pursuance of this decision, the employers decided to retrench its workmen. On 13th Feb., 1970, the respondent-workmen were given notice of retrenchment and they were paid compensation. The workmen raised demand for reinstatement with effect from 17-2-1970. Conciliation proceedings failed, thereupon, the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute to the Labour Court Kanpur for adjudication. The dispute referred was whether the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen with effect from 17-2-1970 was justified and valid. If not, to what relief they were entitled.
(3.) The employers as well as the workmen contested the proceedings before the Labour Court and produced evidence in support of their contention. The workmen contended that their retrenchment was unjustified as after their retrenchment the employers had engaged three Chaukidars who were keeping watch at the Sutherland House. They further contended that the Sutherland House was never sold by the employers, instead the office at Woollen Mills Kanpur was again shifted back to the Sutherland House. The employers contended that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the Sutherland House could not be sold so they were forced to shift back their office to Sutherland House. They asserted that the services of the respondent workmen were retrenched bona fide as their services were not required on account of their policy decision to reorganise their business. The Labour Court repelled the contention of the employers and held that the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen was unjustified and they were entitled to reinstatement in service with full wages.;