- (1.) THE Government of Rajasthan Industries Department through its notification No. D244/f. 5 (67) Lab. /58, dated 15 May 1959, referred to the industrial tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the industrial dispute between the management of Bijey Cotton Mills, Ltd. , Bijeynagar, and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bijeynagar, in respect of certain matters which are specified in that notification. Before we refer to the points which were referred for giving an award to the industrial tribunal, it is necessary to refer to certain facts on record. Bijey Cotton Mills, Ltd. , Bijeynagar, was registered under the Indian Companies Act and had its registered office at Bijeynagar. It appears that from the year 1953 it had had a very tottering career. It was closed on 1 April 1953. It resumed work on 15 May 1954 and after about three years it was again closed on 22 June 1957. It again resumed work on 3 March 1958. Services of some workers of the weaving department were retrenched on 30 April 1958 and of some others on 11 May 1958, Thereafter the mill was closed on 23 June 1958. Naturally all these closures and retrenchments from time to time raised disputes with the workers of the mill who are represented by the Rastriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bijeynagar. Eventually all these points in dispute along with one more mentioned in the notification were referred to the industrial tribunal by the Government of Rajasthan. The matters which were referred were as follows :- (1) Whether the workers of weaving department whose services were terminated on 30 April 1958 and 11 May 1958 should be reinstated with full compensation ? (2) Whether the workers whose services were terminated on 24 June 1958 should be reinstated with full compensation ? (3) Whether all the permanent workers on 24 June 1957 should be paid compensation on account of lockout from 24 June 1957 to the date of reinstatement ? (4) Whether Jawara, son of Onkar, should be reinstated and paid his compensation ? The award of the tribunal on points (1) and (2) is that the workers could not claim to be reinstated because the mill had closed and the reinstatement of any of the workers was out of question. The tribunal also took the view that compensation asked for on account of closure was incidental to reinstatement and in the absence of reinstatement the question of the payment of compensation could not be considered. The finding of the tribunal is that the workers were entitled neither to the reinstatement nor to any compensation consequent upon reinstatement. On point (3) the finding of the tribunal is that the closure of the mill by the management from 24 June 1957 to 3 March 1958 was not a lay-off. The workers were entitled to get compensation under Section 25fff which had been made applicable from 28 November 1956. The view of tribunal is that. . . the issue of one month's notice in writing or payment of wages in lieu of such notice for the period of the notice as also payment of compensation in accordance with Section 25f (b) as if the worker had been retrenched was necessary. Then the tribunal proceeded to observe that in this case the notice (Ex. W. 8) by which the workers were discharged was not a valid notice and the discharge of the mill employees under such a notice cannot be treated as a valid discharge. The tribunal further held that the mill employees were re-employed on their previous jobs on 3 March 1958 by the management under a settlement between the management and the said sangh; the compensation that should be awarded to the permanent workers of the mill was to be equivalent to 50 per cent of the total of the basic wages and dearness allowance for the entire period of unemployment from 24 June 1957 to 18 February 1958.
(2.) THE award of the industrial tribunal is challenged on various grounds by the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh in Writ Petition No. 431 of 1960 and by the Bijey Cotton Mills, Ltd. , Bijeynagar, in Writ Petition No. 351 of 1960. During the course of arguments the contentions on either side we're confined within narrow margins. On behalf of the mills it is urged that the mill had ceased to function on the date when the matter was referred by the Government Of Rajasthan to the industrial tribunal and as such there remained no dispute between the management of existing industry and the workers on the date when the reference was made. It is further contended that the permanent workers of the mill could claim compensation at the most under Section 25fff of the Act and they could not have been awarded compensation on the basis of their period of unemployment.
(3.) ON behalf of the sangh, it is contended that under point (1) it was the duty of the tribunal to decide whether in the absence of their reinstatement the workers who had been retrenched on 30 April 1958 and 11 May 1958 were not entitled to any compensation under Section 25f of the Act though it may be that they could not be reinstated.;