N DASAI GOUNDER AND CO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by twelve employees of a firm of merchants in Coimbatore town called Dasai Gounder and Co. against the Receiver in Charge of the business of Dasai Gounder and Co. for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the labour Court, Coimbatore dismissing industrial Disputes No. 67 of 1958. The facts of the case are the following: dasai Gounder and Co. was a partnership, one partner of which filed a suit in the court of the subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, for dissolution of the firm. A preliminary decree for dissolution was passed on 3-4-57 which directed dissolution of the firm as and from the date of the preliminary decree. In and by the preliminary decree, a receiver was appointed to carry out the directions in the decree which were mostly in the nature of winding up the business consequent upon the dissolution. The receiver who took charge of the business issued notices to the twelve employees concerned in this case terminating then services. Thereupon one among the petitioners preferred an application under s. 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes act before the Labour Court claiming retrenchment compensation under s. 25-F of the Act. That application was dismissed by the Labour Court. Thereupon, the twelve employees approached the Government with a request for reference of the dispute to the Labour court and the Government passed G. O, ms. 3155 Department of Industries, labour and Co-operation, dated 13th august, 1959 whereunder they referred the disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication. The dispute was described in the G. O. in the following terms:

(2.) THE Labour Court took the view that the reference was incompetent under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute since closure of the business was the result of the decree of court and therefore unavoidable. Against that order the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) MR. Ramachandran, counsel for the petitioners contends that the closure of the business by reason of the direction of the preliminary decree would not be closure for unavoidable reasons within the meaning of s. 25-FFF and consequently the retrenchment in this case would not be a retrenchment, as on closure of business. S. 2 (oo) no doubt defines "retrenchment" in very wide terms but the Supreme Court had to consider the scope of this definition in two cases in p. S. Mills Ltd. v. P. S. Mills Mazdoor union (1957 A. I. R. S. C. 95) and in Hariprasad v. A. D. Divelkar (1957 A. I. R. S. C. 121 ). In the latter case (2) the undertaking of a Railway Company was taken over by the Government and consequently the Railway Company wound up its business and ceased to exist. The concerned workers of the Railway Company naturally lost employment. The question arose whether these workers lost employment as the reason of retrenchment or whether the cause for their ceasing to be employed was outside the definition of retrenchment in s. 2 (oo) of the Act. The bombay High Court expressed the view that the cause of cessation of employment fell within the definition of retrenchment in the section mentioned above in the industrial Disputes Act. Differing from this view the Supreme Court ruled thus at page 132: