- (1.) SATYA Parkash Giri and 35 others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash Award dated April 28, 1988, Annexure P-4, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, by which reference sought by them under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, brought no results as their retrenchment was held to be justified and in order.
(2.) INITIALLY, 38 workmen being aggrieved of the orders asking them to quit, sought reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act and even though thrice earlier the Government itself rejected their prayer, it made reference on their fourth attempt vide reference No. 431 of 1987. Their case as projected before the Industrial Tribunal was that they had been working with the Management of M/s. Northern India Lador Cloth Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Management) as per various dates given by them in Annexure W-1 with the statement of claim. They formed an union and their leaders espoused their cause but the Management with a view to scuttle their demands effected lay off of all the workmen without even paying them lay off compensation. After continuous lay off of 45 days, they were retrenched. It was pleaded that the main reason behind ordering them to quit the job was to avoid legal liabilities and it was for this precise reason that in their place others were employed. It was pleaded that the Management had started its regular production by employing new hands which in itself was sufficient to say that their lay off initially, and later retrenchment, was malafide. They also pleaded that even if it was a case of justified retrenchment, under the provisions contained in Section 25-H of the Act they had right of precedence in employment, and management violated this provision of the Industrial Disputes Act by employing others without giving them offer of re-employment. It was also pleaded that their retrenchment was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice. They prayed for setting aside of orders of retrenchment and asked for reinstatement with full back wages.
(3.) THIS matter was hotly contested by the Management and in the written statement that was filed on its behalf it was pleaded that the Management started its factory with 20 workers on November 20, 1978 to manufacture leather cloth at Faridabad. The workmen formed union by the name of Faridabad Chemical Shramik Union on April, 1983 and some officials of the Union kept on raising one demand or the other which was being conceded in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. A settlement was arrived at between the parties under Section 12 (3) of the Act on June 3, 1983. The Management once again conceded some other demands of the workmen in a settlement that was arrived at under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Insofar as lay-off is concerned, the stand of the Management is that during the months of June and July, 1985, recession started resulting into accumulation of stock. Their sales came down from 38. 37 lacs to 5. 71 lacs per month and in August, 1985 finished stock worth Rs. 8. 57 lacs piled up in the factory, thus, resulting into lay-off of 69 workers w. e. f. August 18, 1985 to August 31, 1985. Since the position did not improve, lay off was extended till September 15, 1985 and thereafter upto October 1, 1985 and still thereafter upto October 3, 1985. During this period of lay-off, the workers gharaoed the officers of the Management in a concerted manner and pelted stones. A report in that connection was sent to the Police. On October 4, 1985 which was the 48th day of lay-off, Management effected retrenchment and full retrenchment compensation and notice pay were offered to each laid off workman at the gate. Since the same was refused, on the same day, the Management sent the amount of retrenchment compensation and notice pay by cheque along with individual notice under registered covers. An intimation was also sent to the Government in Form-P. With the efforts of the Management, finished stock was liquidated at substantial discount and some fresh orders were received due to festival season and in such changed circumstances, re-employment offer letters were sent to retrenched workmen by registered A. D. post at present as well as union address as envisaged under Section 26-H of the Act but the registered letters were received back with the remarks 'refused'. However, only few workmen responded to the letters of reemployment and they were actually taken back in service. The workmen thereafter served demand notice and after conciliation proceedings failed, their demand was rejected by the Government vide letter dated March 7, 1986. The workmen thereafter filed an appeal before the Government which was rejected on June 18, 1986. Petitioners even approached the Labour Minister, Haryana but that representation moved on their behalf brought no results as the same was rejected on November 20, 1986. On the aforesaid facts it was, thus, pleaded that lay-off and retrenchment were justified, provisions of Section 25-H were not violated and while retrenching the workmen, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with. A plea was also taken that there was no espousal in the matter and reference of 39 workmen could not constitute industrial dispute in terms of Section 2 (k ). The Industrial Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the termination/retrenchment of Shri Satya Prakash Giri and 37 other workmen shown in Annexure KA is justified and in order? If not, to what relief are they entitled? OPM. (2) Whether there exists an industrial dispute between the parties as defined in Section 2-K of the Act? OPM (3) Whether the reference is bad in law as alleged? OPM. (4) Relief.;