- (1.) THIS special appeal of the Udainur Mineral Development Syndicate Private Ltd. , Bhilwara, is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated July 9, 1971. It lies within a narrow compass and a narration of the undisputed facts will he quite sufficient for its disposal.
(2.) RESPONDENT, M. P. Dave was employed as a mechanic in the appellant's factory in Bhilwara and had been in continuous service for not less than one year when he was retrenched by a notice dated July 25, 1966 which was served on him on July 30, 1966. He was, however, not paid the compensation prescribed by Clause (b) of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act," at the time of the retrenchment. He moved the Labour and Conciliation Officer, and ultimately the dispute between him and the appellant was referred to the Labur Court for deciding the Question whether the removal of the respondent was proper and legal and, if not, to what relief he was entitled. That Court held that there was noncompliance with the provisions of the aforesaid Section 25f but, in the circumstances of the case, it allowed the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,000 as compensation and refused the relief of reinstatement. The respondent challenged the award of the Labour Court dated February 7, 1970, by a writ petition before the learned single Judge who allowed it by by his impugned judgment dated July 9, 1971. He set aside that part of the award whereby the Labour Court refused to reinstate the petitioner, and directed the Court to amend its award accordingly. The Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Private Ltd. , feels aggrieved against that judgment and has come up in appeal before us.
(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge went wrong In holding that as the retrenchment of the petitioner was "invalid" in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay and Ors. v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. 1960-I L. L. J. 251, "the Labour Court was left with no option but to reinstate the petitioner in his job. " It has been urged that even if it was assumed that the normal rule in such cases would be the reinstatement of the retrenched workman, the learned single Judge erred in thinking that the Labour Court had no option but to reinstate the respondent in his job. Reliance for this argument has been placed on Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Ors. 1949-I L. L. J. 245; Bharat Bank Ltd. , Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. , Delhi and Anr. 1950-I L. L. J. 9211, Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association, G'ondia and Ors. v. Bombay State and Hindustan Steels Ltd. Rourkela v. A. K. Roy and Ors. 1970-I L. L. J. 2281-We have gone through these cases. In the case of Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Ors. (supra) their Lordships of the Federal Court considered the argument whether as, order of reinstatement was unusual or extraordinary in law, and took the view that such a relief was on the same footing as the relief of restitution, and held that there was nothing extraordinary in the restoration of an ex-employee to his previous position in so far as capacity, status and emoluments were concerned when that was considered necessary in the interests of the peaceful settlement of an industrial dispute. It was observed that the award of the Tribunal may even contain provisions for settlement of a dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by the ordinary law, and that the industrial-arbitration may " involve" the extension of an existing agreement or the making of a new one, or in general the creation of new obligation or modification of old ones, and that was held to be a true statement of the functions of Industrial Tribunals in labour disputes. That, view was considered and approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bharat Bank's case (supra) and then again in Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association case (supra) and Hindustan Steels Ltd. , Rourkela v. A. K. Roy and cithers (supra ). It is, therefore, well settled that as Industrial Tribunal may create new obligations or modify contracts in the interest of industrial peace, and it has the jurisdiction to make a proper and a reasonable order in any industrial dispute. In the last of these cases, i. e. . in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steels Ltd. (supra) it has been held by their Lordships that while the normal rule in such cases should be reinstatement, in unusual or exceptionl cases, where it is not expedient to grant that relief, the proper relief would be compensation if that would meet the ends of justice. The matter has. therefore, to be examiner! in a spirit of "fairness" and "justice. ";