- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court, Jullundur, given in Reference No. 21 of 1961. M/s. Kundan Iron and Steel Industries, Chheharta, hereinafter called the management, retrenched four of its workers and suspended another three with effect from 31st July, 1960. The Workers Union took up the cause of the retrenched and suspended workers and as a result there of the Punjab Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, described hereinafter as the Act, referred the dispute to the Labour Court at Jullunder for adjudication by notification No. 13662-Lab (1) -60/2781, dated 27th January, 1961. It was pleaded by the workmen before the Court that the retrenchment and suspension orders passed by the management were unjustified, illegal and mala fide. The management allege that there was o industrial dispute existing between the parties and reference was, therefore, had in law. The following three issues had to be decided by the Labour Court :1. Whether the retrenchment of Sarvshri Sudagar Singh, Mohan Singh, Amar Singh and Parma Nand is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief they are entitled ?
(2.) WHETHER the action of the management in suspending Sarvashri Santokh Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Veer Singh with effect from 31st July, 1960, is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief they are entitled ?
(3.) WHETHER the dispute raised in the reference was not an industrial dispute ? 2. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the management it being held that there was no justification for the suspension of the works and that retrenchment was bad in law since the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with. Under issue No. 3, it was held that there was an industrial dispute capable of adjudication. It is a common, ground that after the reference, respondent management totally closed down its business on 22nd October, 1962, and the legality of its action in closing its business was not challenged by the workmen. In the result, the Labour Court directed the management to pay to the workers concerned retrenchment compensation due to them under Section 25-FFF read with Section 25-F of the Act. Proviso to Section 25-FFF (1) requires that where an industrial undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation payable to the workman under clause (b) of Section 25-F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. Except in the case of bona fide closure of business, a workman employed in an industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year cannot be retrenched by an employer until he is given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and that the period of notice has expired, or he is paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of notice as provided in clause (a) of Section 25-F. Clause (b) of the same section permits an employer to retrench a workman if at the time of retrenchment he is paid compensation which is equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months, ad notice in the prescribed manner is serviced on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government. 3. The workmen being dissatisfied with the relief granted to them by respondent 1 have come to this Court in a writ petition.;