- (1.) In this writ petition we are concerned with the interpretation of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent No. 4 Sri T. P. Singh was employed as an Office Assistant in the petitioner firm which carried on its business at 110, Factory Area, Fazalgan, Kanpur. It was alleged that the reason for appointment of the aforesaid respondent was that there were some disputes amongst the partners of the firm. Later, however, when those differences were resolved, the partners chose to perform the duties of the Office Assistant themselves and this made that post superfluous. In these circumstances the petitioner retrenched respondent No. 4 after serving on him retrenchment notice dated 4-2-1970. In the said notice the respondent No. 4 was asked to collect one month's salary as well as compensation as required under the provisions of the Act. The respondent No. 4 did not, however, approach the petitioner to collect the amount offered to him and consequently the petitioner by money order remitted one month's salary to the respondent No. 4 which he accepted. A very material circumstance in this case is that admittedly the respondent No. 4 had taken from the petitioner an advance of Rs. 725/- and Rs. 200/- as tour allowance Thus, it is admitted that a total amount of Rs. 925/- had been received by the respondent No. 4 from the petitioner.
(2.) Since, however, a dispute arose between the parties and the Conciliation Officer failed to bring about a conciliation, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, Camp at Kanpur for adjudication by its referring order dated 28-8-1970. In those proceedings the respondent No. 4 raised a plea that he was given Rs. 170/- per month as official pay but over and above that he was also being paid a sum of Rs. 100/- per month, although the latter amount was never mentioned in writing. Thus, according to the respondent No. 4 his emoluments were Rs. 270/- per month. Another plea taken by the respondent No. 4 before the Labour Court was that his retrenchment was illegal and invalid, inasmuch as he had not paid one month's salary and the retrenchment compensation as required under the law. The respondent No. 4, however, clearly admitted before the Labour Court that he had worked with the firm for two years and three months and he had accepted Rs. 170/- per month remitted to him by money order, which amount had been sent by the petitioner and that he had also taken an advance of Rs. 925/- from the petitioner firm. While dealing with the question of retrenchment the Labour Court was of the view that the respondent No. 4 had bolstered up a deliberately false case, that he had been receiving only Rs. 170/- per month as salary and the contrary contention raised by him was false, that he had also taken Rs. 925/- from the petitioner as advance, that the respondent No. 4 had been paid one month's salary which he had accepted in lieu of retrenchment. However, after recording these findings the Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the retrenchment compensation for 15 days had not been actually paid to the respondent No. 4 and had, according to the petitioner's allegation, to be adjusted with the advance given to the respondent No. 4, the retrechment of the respondent No. 4 was invalid. Since, however, the Labour Court had also held that the respondent No. 4 had put up a case which was false throughout "from the beginning to the end," it did not consider it desirable to foist such an employee on the management. Hence, in spite of retrenchment the only relief granted by the Labour Court to the respondent was payment of salary for fourteen months by the petitioner. In these terms the award dated 17-7-1972 was made by the' Labour Court and published in the U.P. Gazette dated 23-9-1972 (Annexure A-1 to the writ petition); which has been impugned by the petitioner.
(3.) Since on facts there is hardly any controversy between the parties, the sole point which arises for determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to adjust the compensation for retrenchment payable to the respondent No. 4 in the amount of advance which the said respondent had admittedly taken from the management or was it imperative under the law that the amount of retrenchment compensation should be paid in cash to the employee.;