UNITED BLEACHERS PRIVATE LIMITED METTUPALAYAM Vs. LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal instituted by the management of the united Bleachers (Private), Ltd. , Mettupalayam, from the judgment of veeraswami, J. , in Writ Petition No. 129 of 1962, which itself was a proceeding for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the award in Industrial Dispute no. 41 of 1961 on the file of the labour court, Coimbatore. The facts have to be set forth; first with some precision and care, for a proper appreciation of the true scope of controversy before us. For the purpose of the disposal of this appeal, we are segregating certain essential facts alone for notice, and disregarding others. One P. Krishnan employed as a workman in the organization of the appellant-institution, in a particular capacity of a supervision of a shift, in the stitching department, was informed by a letter of the management dated 3 October, 1957, that his post was abolished. THIS was in consequence of a decision by the management to work both stitching machines during the day-shift, and to abolish the night-shift. In order to lessen the hardship to the worker he was offered an alternative job of a helper in the same department, admittedly, a different and lower category. On 8 October, 1957 the management terminated the services of another worker, C. Krishnan, in that lower category, so as to provide P. Krishnan with the employment offered. P. Krishnan declined, on 8 October, 1957, to leave his post of supervisor in the stitching section, and to work as a helper. He also declined, according to the management, to receive a "show cause" notice for alleged misconduct. He was then dismissed from service, and a dispute was raised on this issue which was the subject-matter of a proceeding before the lower Court. It ended in an award dated 10 March, 1958, directing P. Krishnan to be reinstated in service. Meanwhile the workers comprising the union had taken up the question of the retrenchment of C. Krishnan, in the inferior category of helper, on the ground that this was not justified. That separate industrial dispute also ended in favour of the contention of labour, and the lower Court gave an award to that effect, dated 15 May, 1958. According to the management, they then found themselves in a real difficulty in implementing the two awards, because the cumulative effect of the awards was that the management could not offer the post of the helper to P. Krishnan, but had to retain or reinstate C. Krishnan, while the management was compelled to continue P. Krishnan, as a supervisor in the stitching section, according to them, a, post which ought to be retrenched in the interests of economy. Some correspondence followed, into the details of which we need not here enter. One matter stands clear, and that is that the award of the labour court with regard to P. Krishnan was not implemented according to the contents of labour (Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1958) and that there were certain proceedings in consequence, a prosecution of the management under a relevant section of law, in the Court of the District Magistrate, coimbatore. They resulted in a conviction; but on an appeal to the District and sessions Judge, the management was acquitted; throughout, the claim of the management was that there was no intentional failure to implement the award.

(2.) ON 29 May, 1958, the management dismissed a large number of workers of the establishment for alleged participation in a strike, and that gave rise to a third industrial dispute (Industrial Dispute No. 69 of 1058 ). That culminated in certain writ proceedings, and a pending writ appeal. According to the case of the union the delay in making the reference by the State Government, in the present industrial dispute, was on account of these circumstances, as we shall see later, the question of delay is one of the relevant facts in the present proceedings. The labour court held, by the award which was the subject of the writ petition before the learned Judge (Veeraswami, J.) that the dismissal of p. Krishnan, whose case alone now concerns us, was wrongful for failure of the management to observe the provisions of S. 25g of the Act, which relates to the principle of retrenchment that the last to come, or to be employed, must be the first to go, and the retrenchment can only be in that order. We might here conveniently not that the management attempted to raise the argument that every separate section of supervisors in the stitching establishment should be considered as an independent category, in which case the retrenchment of P. Krishnan could be technically justified. The labour court specifically overruled this contention and came to the conclusion that dismissal of P. Krishnan was wrongful. But, curiously enough, the logical consequence of this conclusion was not embodied in the award, owing to one circumstance. It appears that, during proceedings in the labour court, there was an admission by P. Krishnan, or at least a concession, that he would be willing to be employed as a helper in the inferior category, even if he could not be reinstated in the grade of supervisor; the labour court hence directed the reinstatement of P. Krishnan, in the category of helper.