http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED EMPLOYEES’  UNION

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/02/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1163            1995 SCC  (3) 474  JT 1995 (2)   410        1995 SCALE  (1)814

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   These two appeals are preferred against the judgment of a  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  allowing Writ Appeal No. 1 529 of 1984 filed by the  Respondent-Union and  dismissing Writ Appeal No. 1 528 of 1984  preferred  by the  Appellant-Management.   The  matter  arises  under  the Industrial Disputes Act. 2.   The   appellant-Hindustan  Steel   Works   Construction Limited is a company wholly owned and controlled by the Gov- ernment  of  India.  It is engaged in  the  construction  of industrial  and engineering plants both within  the  country and  abroad.   Among  other works,  it  had  undertaken  the construction  of  a steel plant at Bokaro in  the  State  of Bihar,  construction of a superalloy project and  a  nuclear fuel  complex  at Hyderabad.  It has  also  undertaken  some works  at  Visakhapatnam.  For its  Hyderabad  projects.  it engaged  about 230 workmen.  These works were  completed  by January, 1980 except for some very minor works. 3.   Apprehending that the workers may be retrenched on  the completion  of the works at Hyderabad, the  respondcnt-Union had  a  meeting  with  the  Management  of  the   appellant- corporation  on  September  5, 1979.   The  minutes  of  the meeting read as follows:               "The  Union  mentioned  that  there  are   230               workers  in  Hyderabad  Unit  of  HSCL.   Even               though  the  work  is  coming  to  an  end  at               Hyderabad, they stated that since the  company               is getting work in Vizag it should be possible               for  the  management to transfer all  the  230               workers from Hyderabad to Vim& including those               belonging to non-transferable categories.  The               Union  felt  that  there  should  not  be  any               difficulty for the Management to agree to this               because  both Hyderabad and Vizag are  in  the               same State and the number of workers  involved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

             is not much.               It was pointed out from the Management’s  side               that  to the extent of requirement  that  will               arise immediately at Vizag in the transferable               categories,  transfer from Hyderabad  will  be               done.   However, in case  of  non-transferable               categories, they may have to be retrenched  at               Hyderabad   and   re-employed  at   Vizag   if               requirements arise there later.               The  management  offered that, from  the  non-               transferable categories, if anyone is suitable               for  skilled job, selection could be made  out               of  them  for  the  immediate  requirement  of               skilled  categories  at  Vizag  in  place   of               recruiting from outside." 4.   Accordingly,   130   workers   were   transferred    to Visakhapatnam but the remaining 100 could not be absorbed at any  other  place.  It is not clear from the record   -  nor does it appear to have been gone into at any stage - whether these  100 workers belong to transferable categories  or  to non-transferable categories. 5.   On  March  28, 1981, the appellant issued a  notice  of retrenchment stating that inasmuch as the construction works undertaken at Hyderabad have come to an end, the workmen  as per  the annexure to the notice have become surplus and  are being retrenched.  On the same day, indi- 413 vidual  notices for retrenchment were issued  in  accordance with   Section   25F  of  the  Act  making   available   the retrenchment  compensation  and one month’s pay in  lieu  of notice. 6.   Four  writ  petitions were filed in the High  Court  of Andhra Pradesh challenging the said retrenchment.  They were dismissed  in  view of the alternative remedy  of  reference provided by the statute.  By G.O.M.S. No.276 dated April 27, 1982,   the  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  referred   the following   two  questions  for  the  adjudication  of   the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad:               "(1)  Whether  the demand of  Hindustan  Steel               Works  Construction  Limited  Employees  Union               Hyderabad,  for the absorption of the  hundred               workmen,   retrenched   on  28.3.198   1,   at               Visakhapatnam  and other works in the  country               is  justified?   If so, to  what  relief,  the               workmen are entitled?               (2)Whether  the  action of the  management  in               transferring and continuing junior workmen  in               other works, while retrenching senior  workers               recruited   for  the  construction  works   at               Hyderabad,  is  justified?  If  not,  to  what               relief, the workmen arc entitled? 7.   Both  the  parties led evidence  before  the  Tribunal, after considering which the Tribunal recorded the  following findings: (1)that  the appellant is a single undertaking.  He  several units  of the appellant really constitute parts of the  same undertaking; (2)retrenchment  of the workmen, even before the  completion of works at Hyderabad is unlawful.  They should be  absorbed in other units; (3)it  also appears that juniors to the  retrenched  workers were being continued.  It is a violation of Section 25-G. 8.   On   the   above  findings,   the   Tribunal   directed reinstatement of the said workers (the 100 workers who  were before  the  Tribunal) with full back wages,  continuity  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

service and other consequential benefits. 9.   The  appellant  questioned the award by way of  a  writ petition  in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  It was  allowed by  a learned Single Judge who found that the  establishment at Hyderabad is a separate establishment.  The learned Judge held that the fact that some of the workers were transferred from  Bokaro to Hyderabad or from Hydrabad to  Visakhapatnam does  not  militate  against  the  Hyderabad  unit  being  a separate undertaking.  The Management’s right to transfer an employee  is distinct from the right of the worker to  claim transfer  or  absorption in another unit, held  the  learned Judge.  He held further that out of the 100 employees, three employees  who  were  transferred from  Bokaro  stand  on  a different footing while the remaining ninety seven who  were recruited   at  Hyderabad  cannot  claim  parity  with   the aforesaid three worker.;. The writ petition was  accordingly allowed  and  the award of the Industrial  Tribunal  quashed except  to the extent of the aforesaid three  workers.   Two writ  appeals were preferred against the said judgment,  one by  the  appellant  insofar a.-. it upheld  the  award  with respect  to  three workers aforesaid and the  other  by  the Union  insofar as the judgment set aside the award with  re- spect to the remaining ninety seven workmen.  In view of the contentions  urged  before it, the Division Benc  held  that three 414 questions  arose for consideration.  The three questions  as set out in the impugned judgment are.               "(1)  Whether  any  Industrial  dispute  under               Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act  can               be raised out of closure of the Establishment?               If so, whether the reference is bad?               (2)When  once  it  is held  that  there  is  a               closure  of  the  establishment  whether   the               question of absorption does arise?               (3)Whether the establishment at Hyderabad is a               separate one?  If so, whether the retrenchment               on closure Of such   establishment  is  proper               or not? 10.  The Division Bench found that (1) "there     is      no closure  of  company’s  establishment  and,  therefore,  the management  cannot  successfully  assail  the  validity   of reference on the ground that it does not raise an industrial dispute".  The Bench observed, "nowhere the word closure has been  used denoting that the establishment at  Hyderabad  is closed.  The word "surplus" used in the notices is the  very antithesis  to closure".  The Bench also held, on the  basis of Exhs.D-23 to 27 and W57, that works at Hyderabad were not over by the date of notices of retrenchment. (2)  In  view  of  the finding on the  first  question,  the second question does not arise and that "it is incumbent  on the.  part  of the company to absorb workmen  sought  to  be retrenched"; and (3)  "there is functional integrality between the workmen at Vizag unit and the units at    Hyderabad.     The    service conditions     of the workmen in all the units are  uniform. There  is unity of employment, control,  administration  and ownership  and  so there is  functional  integrality,  which makes the Company as the single undertaking.  If that be so, the  conclusion which is irresistible, is that the units  at Hyderabad  are not separate establishment but they  are  all components of one single establishment.  If that be so,  the inevitable  conclusion  is that the  provisions  enacted  in section  25-G of the Act which ordains that, whenever  there is  a  retrenchment  in  any  establishment,  the  rule   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

seniority  must prevail and govern the situation.  The  com- pany  in  our  undoubted view  has  been  maintaining  zonal seniority  list  and  zone  being the  base  for  the  inter transfers  and  promotions  of the workmen  working  in  the Southern  zone, brought in from out of the said  zone,  they will  have  to  yield by way of preference  to  the  workmen belonging to the    southern zone." 11.  Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the  judgment of the learned Single Judge   and restored the award of  the Industrial  Tribunal in full.  It is, however, necessary  to notice  an important distinction between the finding of  the Tribunal  and the finding of the Division Bench.  While  the Tribunal  held  that since all the units  of  the  appellant constitute one single establishment, the retrenched  workmen are  entitled to be absorbed at Visakhapatnam  or  at  other places,  as  the case may be, the Division Bench  held  that since  seniority is maintained zone-wise,  these  retrenched workmen  are  entitled to be absorbed  at  Visakhapatnam  in preference to the work-men brought from outside the southern zone.   It  is true that the Tribunal too  refers  to  zonal seniority  but it does not restrict the right of  absorption to the southern zone. 12.  The first question that must be an- 415 swered  is,  whether the works at Hyderabad had come  to  an end?  We have been taken through the relevant material.   It clearly  discloses that both the works had come to a  close; only certain very minor works remained to be done which were assigned  to private contractors.  Indeed, both the  workmen and management were acting on the assumption that the  works had  come to an end.  The retrenchment notices say  so;  the questions  referred to the Tribunal are based upon the  said assumption.   If the works at Hyderabad were not  completed, question of absorption of these workmen elsewhere would  not have  arisen.   We, therefore, agree  with  the  management- appellant  that the works at Hyderabad had indeed come to  a close. 13. The next and important question in this case is  whether the units at Hyderabad are independent establishments or are they  parts  of the larger establishment of  the  appellant. This question cannot be treated as a pure question of  fact. The  Industrial Tribunal has taken one view which  has  been set  aside by the learned Single Judge, whose view  in  turn has  been  upset  by the Division Bench.   It  is  in  these circumstances  that  we  are obliged to  go  into  the  said question.  The tests relevant in this behalf have been  laid down  by this Court in a number of decisions.  Thou  hit  is not necessary to refer to all of them, a brief reference  to a few of them would be in order. 14.In  Management  Hindustan  Steel  v.  Workmen  (1973  (3) S.C.R.303),  this Court made the following  observations  in the  context  of  Section  25FFF  (subsection  (2)   whereof contains a special provision applicable to undertakings  set up  for  construction of buildings  and  other  construction works):               "The word undertaking as used in s.25FFF seems               to us to have been used in its ordinary  sense               connoting   thereby  any   work,   enterprise,               project  or business undertaking.  It  is  not               intended  to  cover  the  entire  industry  or               business  of the employer as was suggested  on               behalf  of  the respondent’  Even  closure  or               stoppage   of  a  part  of  the  business   or               activities of the employer %would seem in  law               to  be  covered  by  this  sub-section.    The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             question has indeed to be decided on the facts               of each case.  In the present case the  Ranchi               Housing Project was clearly a distinct venture               undertaken  by  the  appellant and  it  had  a               distinct  beginning  and  an  end.    Separate               office was apparently set up for this  venture               and  on  the  completion  of  the  project  or               enterprise  that undertaking was closed  down.               The  Tribunal  has  actually  so  found.   Its               conclusion has not been shown to be wrong  and               we  have  no hesitation in agreeing  with  its               view." 15. In the Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v.    M/s.    Straw   Board   Manufacturing   Company    Ltd (1974)(3)S.C.R.703), this Court held:               "The most important aspect in this  particular               case  relating to closure, in our opinion,  is               whether   one  unit  has   such   componential               relation that closing of one must lead to  the               closing  of  the  other  or  the  one   cannot               reasonably    exist   without    the    other.               Functional  integrality will assume  an  added               significance in a case of closure of a  branch               or  unit.   That  the  R.Mill  is  capable  of               functioning  in isolation is of very  material               import in the case of closure.  There is bound               to  be a shift of emphasis in  application  of               various  tests from one case to  another.   In               other  words, whether independent  functioning               of  the  R.Mill  can  at all  be  said  to  be               affected    by    the    closing    of     the               S.Mill............  Me  fact of the  unity  of               ownership,  supervision and control  and  some               other common features, which we               416               have noticed above, do not justify a  contrary               conclusion on this aspect in the present case.               There is considerable force in the  submission               of Mr.Chitaley that the R.Mill is a  different               line of business and the closure of the S.Mill               has nothing to do with the functioning of  the               R.Mill. The matter may be absolutely different               when in an otherwise going concern or a  func-               tioning  unit  some  workmen’s  services  were               terminated  as being redundant or  surplus  to               requirements.  That most of the conditions  of               service  of the two Mills  were  substantially               identical can be easily explained by the  fact               that, being owned by the same employer and the               two  units being situated in close  proximity,               it  will  not  be  in  the  interest  of   the               management  and  peace and well being  of  the               Company  to  treat the  employees  differently               creating  heart  burning  and  discrimination.               For  the same reason, there is  no  particular               significance in this case even in the applica-               tion of the standing orders of the Company  to               the  employees of the R.Mill which because  of               the non-requisite number of employees employed               in the latter, is not even required under  the               law  to have separate standing order.  It  is,               in our opinion, a clear case of closure of  an               independent  unit  of  a  company  and  not  a               closure of a part of an establishment." 16.This  decision  was  followed in  Isha  Steel  Treatment,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Bombay v. Association Of Engineering Workers, Bombay &  Anr. (1987 (2) S.C.R.414). 17.It has been held repeatedly that all the tests evolved in the  several  decisions  of  this  Court  need  not  all  be satisfied in every case.  One has also to look to the nature and   character  of  the  undertaking  while  deciding   the question.   The  tests  evolved  are  merely  to  serve   as guidelines.  Now, let us look at the appellant-company.   It is  a government company wholly owned and controlled by  the Government  of India.  Its job is to undertake  construction works both in India and abroad.  The construction works  are not  permanent  works  in  the sense that  as  soon  as  the construction work is over the establishment comes to a to an end  at that place.  In such a case, functional  integrality assumes  significance.  The nature of the construction  work may also differ from work to work or place to place, as  the case  may be.  It is not even suggested by  the  respondent- Union  that there is any functional integrality between  the several  units or several construction works  undertaken  by the  appellant.   It is not suggested that  closure  of  one leads  to  the  closure of others.  There  is  no  proximity between the several units/works undertaken by the appellant; they  are spread all over India, indeed all over the  world. It would thus appear that each of the works or  construction projects  undertaken  by the appellant  represent  distinct- establishments  and  did not -constitute units of  a  single establishment.  The Division Bench, however, was  influenced by  the fact that (i) when the workers are transferred  from one  unit  to other unit they carried their  seniority  with them; (ii) the orders of appointment say that the  employees are  liable  to be transferred to one place to  other;  that indeed, forty three out of hundred workers concerned  herein were brought to Hyderabad on transfer from other places  and (iii) initially, Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam were under  the same   administrative  control  and  that  when  they   were separated  the  workers  were not asked  to  exercise  their option to remain in one or the other unit.  In our  opinion, however, the fact that the Management reserved to itself the liberty  of  transferring the employees from  one  place  to another did not mean that all the units of the appellant 417 constituted  one  single establishment.  In the  case  of  a construction  company  like the appellant  which  undertakes construction  works  wherever awarded, does  that  work  and winds  up its establishment there and particularly  where  a number of local persons have to be and are appointed for the purpose  of  a  particular work, mere  unity  of  ownership, management and control are not of much significance.  Having regard  to the facts and circumstances of this case and  the material  on record, the conclusion is inevitable  that  the units at Hyderabad were distinct establishments.  Once  this is  so,  workmen  of the said unit had no  right  to  demand absorption in other units on the Hyderabad units  completing their job. 18.  Counsel for the parties raised certain  questions    of law before us with reference  to   certain   provisions   in Chapters  V.  A and V-B of the Act, but  in  the  particular facts and circumstances of this case, we arc not inclined to allow the parties to raise contentions not urged before  the High  Court.  We have confined our attention only  to  those issues which were urged before and dealt by the High Court. 19.  We are told that by virtue of the Tribunal’s award, all the hundred workers are being paid wages over the last  more than ten years even though there is no work for them to  do. The   situation   is  undoubtedly  one   which   calls   for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

rectification. 20.  For  the above reasons, the appeals are allowed  except with  respect to three workers concerned in Writ Appeal  No. 1528  of  1984  on  the file of the  High  Court  of  Andhra Pradesh.  No costs. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 789-90 AND 791-92 OF 1987: 21.  These  appeals are preferred directly against an  award of   the  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,   Bangalore   in A.I.D.No.48  of 1991 and A.I.D.No.25 of 1983.   The  special leave petitions were evidently entertained and leave granted in  view  of  the pendency of C.A.GNo.4079-80  of  1985  and C.A.No.41  IS of 1984, as would be eident from this  court’s order  dated  March  23,  1987.   The  first  two   appeals, C.A.Nos.789-90 of 1987 are preferred by the employees  while the other two appeals, C.A.Nos.791-92 of 1987 are  preferred by  the  Management.  We shall refer to the workmen  as  the respondents  and  the Management as the appellant  in  these appeals. 22.  In the year 1977, the respondents workmen were  working at Bokaro Steel City unit of the appellant-corporation.   In view  of  the exigencies of the work at Bokaro,  about  four hundred  workers including 104 respondents were proposed  to be  transferred  to Kudremukh unit in Karnataka  and  Bhilai unit  in  Madhya  Pradesh.   The  workers  proposed  to   be transferred  were apprehensive that after their transfer  to Kudremukh  and  Bhillai,  they  may  be  retrenched.    This apprehension  was  allayed  by  a  circular  issued  by  the Management on November 9, 197 saying that the "rumours  that the  workers would be retrenched on transfer to Bhillai  and Kudremukh..... is baseless". 23.  In  the  year  1980-8  1,  about  two  hundred  workers including   the  respondents  herein  were  transferred   to Kudremukh  unit.  On March 27, 1981, 175  workers  including the respondents were retrenched on the ground that they were surplus.   On a dispute being raised by the appellants,  the Government  of Karnataka referred the following question  to the   Additional   Industrial   Tribunal,   Bangalore    for adjudication: 418 "Is  the  Management of Hindustan Steel  Works  Construction Limited,  Kudremukh  Malleshwara,  Chickmaglur  -   District justified  in  retrenching  101  workmen  with  effect  from 27.3.1981?" 24.  Pending  disposal of the said dispute, the  respondents applied  for interim relief.  The Tribunal granted the  same at  the  rate of sixty per cent of their wages  with  effect from  November  1, 1982.  That order was challenged  by  the Management  before the High Court of Karnataka.   A  learned Single  Judge, by his order dated April 22,  1983,  modified the  order of the Tribunal and directed that the  Management shall  pay interim relief at the rate of one third of  their wages for a period of three months from the month of  April, 1983.   The  order  of the learned  Single  Judge  was  left undisturbed by the Division Bench. 25.  While  the dispute was pending before the  Tribunal  at Bangalore, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad made its award in I.D.No.21 of 1982 (subject of Civil Appeal Nos.4079-80 of 1985).   The  allowing  of  a writ  petition  filed  by  the Management  against the award of the Hyderabad Tribunal  and the  setting  aside of the judgment of  the  learned  Single Judge by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (-referred  to in our order in Civil Appeal  Nos.4079-80  of 1985)  all  took place during the pendency  of  the  present dispute  before the Bangalore Tribunal.  The  workmen  filed the  copies  of the judgment of the Division  Bench  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

Andhra Pradesh High Court before the Tribunal and asked  for a similar relief.  The workmen also brought to the notice of the Tribunal the interim orders passed by this court in  the aforesaid  appeals.  By its award dated July 31,  1986,  the Tribunal held that though the retrenchment of 104 workmen by the Management was unjustified, the workmen are not entitled to  an order of reinstatement in view of the facts and  cir- cumstances  of  the case but only to compensation  equal  to three   months’  wages  in  addition  to  the   retrenchment compensation  already paid to them.  Paras 35 and 36 of  the Tribunal’s award, relevant on this aspect, read thus:               "The  last  point for consideration  would  be               regarding the nature of the relief that should               be  granted  to  the  workmen.   Normally,  if               retrenchment  is  held as  invalid,  they  are               entitled  to reinstatement with  consequential               benefits.   But,  when we the facts  of  these               references,   it  will  be  clear   that   the               management will be placed in a predicament and               great  hardship will be caused if the rule  of               reinstatement  is adhered to.  The  management               has  to  work up the seniority  of  all  these               workmen  and their fitment in  an  appropriate               scale  at  this  distance  of  time.   If  the               different  units  are  facing  the  burden  of               excess  manpower  the reinstatement  of  these               workmen  will  be an additional  burden  which               should  not  be normal  imposed.   Apart  from               that, it would cause a considerable  confusion               and unrest amongst all the concerned defeating               the   very  object  of  Section  250  of   the               Industrial  Disputes  Act.   In  similar  cir-               cumstances  in the workmen of  National  Radio               and Electronics Company Vs- Presiding  Office,               Labour Court, Writ Petition No. 6334 of  1974,               the   Karnataka   High   Court   has   awarded               compensation  to the workmen as  redressal  of               their grievances. in the Industrial  Chemicals               ltd. Vs- Labour Court, Madras, 1977 (ii)  LLJO               13 7, it has been held as follows:-               "It is settled position of law that once it is               found  that  retrenchment is  unjustified  and               improper  it  is  for  the  Labour  Court   to               consider what relief               419               the  retrenched worker is entitled to.  It  is               open  to the labour Court, in exercise of  its               jurisdiction,    to   take   note    of    the               circumstances,  in  the  particular  case  and               decide   not   to   grant   the   relief    of               reinstatement, but grant instead of relief  by               way of compensation to the workmen.  "               It  follows therefore that, whenever  the  re-               trenchment  is  held to  be  unreasonable  and               improper  and  if  their  reinstatement  works               great  hardship  on the management,  then  the               Court may grant compensation to them.   Hence,               the  workers in these references are  entitled               to compensation.               36.For  the reasons foregoing, in my  opinion,               the   management   has   not   justified   the               reasonableness  or  proprietary  of  the   re-               trenchment  of these workmen.  The  retrenched               workmen  should be awarded a  compensation  of               three  months  wages each in addition  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             retrenchment  compensation  which  is  already               paid to them." 26.  It is this award which is questioned by the workmen  as well as the management in these appeals. 27   The  appellants have not been able to  satisfyous  that the several reasons given by the Tribunal for not  directing reinstatement  of the appellants-workmen are incorrect as  a fact  or that they are irrelevant or impermissible  in  law. That the respondent-Corporation is groaning under the weight of surplus and excessive man-power is not denied as a  fact; indeed,  it is an indeniable fact.  The Industrial  Tribunal is  entitled to take note of the said fact and to mould  the relief to suit the justice of the case.  In exercise of this court’s  power under Article 136 of the Constitution, it  is not  open  to us to substitute our opinion for that  of  the Industrial Tribunal unless we find that the reasons given by it in the paras aforesaid are either incorrect factually  or irrelevant  or impermissible in law.  Since we are not  able to  say so, these appeals are dismissed.  The appeals  filed by the Management also fail and are dismissed.  No costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4115 OF 1984: 28.  This appeals by workmen is preferred    against     the award of the Labour Court,    Mysore dated November 11, 1992. There  are as many as 239 appellants in this  appeal.   They were  recruited  locally by  the  respondent-corporation  at Kudremukh and for the purpose of Kudremukh unit.  They  were retrenched on September 24, 1980.  On an industrial  dispute being raised by the appellants, the Government of  Karnataka referred  the following two questions to the  Labour  Court: "(1) "ether 239 retrenched workmen asstated in the  Annexure are justified in demanding reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service? (2) If not, to what other relief  the above said workmen are entitled to?’ 29.  On  a consideration of the material placed  before  it, the Tribunal held that the retrenchment  was not legal but having regard to  the  facts and  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  did  not  think   it appropriate to order reinstatement and other incidental ben- efits.   In lieu thereof, it granted compensation  equal  to the  wages of two months in addition to wages of  one  month already  paid  exclusive of the  retrenchment  compensation. Para 44 of the award brings out the reasons for not granting the  relief  of retrenchment, back wages and  continuity  of service.  It reads: "44.   The  worken  have contended  that  senior  have  been retrenched,  though many juniors have been retained.  Not  a single incidents has been shown as to show was  420 the said junior retained at Kudremukh even after  24-9-1980. If some of the persons who had been already transferred were juniors  to these persons, it has been already held that  as on 15-9-1980, they were no longer in the service of the  11- Party establishment of Kudremukh and it can not be said that they were still the juniors of these workmen.  However,  the facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that on  2 points the management is not on a firm ground.  The first of them  is  that the management has not proved that  only  the seniors were transferred irrespective of the unit  seniority or  otherwise, though they had professed to do so  in  their various   meetings   with   the   unions.    Secondly,   the retrenchment  compensation and wages in lieu of  one  months notice  have not been paid either earlier to or at the  very moment of the time of retrenchment.  The learned counsel for the   management  referred  to  the  case  of  Workinen   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Coimbatore  Pioneer  "B"  Mills Ltd. Vs-  Labour  Court  and others (1980 (1) LLJ 503) and contended that in every  case, there  need not be any order of reinstatement and that  even if  it is found that there is some lacuna, the Tribunal  may not  order for reinstatement and especially in view  of  the fact that the II-Party management is labouring under a heavy load of surplus labour force.  The fact of the reported case disclose   that   the  Labour  Court  has  held   that   the retrenchment was bonafide, but that there was non-compliance of clause (b) of Section 25F.  In that context, the  Hon’ble High Court had enhanced the compensation to two months wages and  the  Hon’ble,  Supreme court of India added  a  sum  of Rs.750/-  to  each worker in lieu of reinstatement.   In  my view, for such infirmity as discussed above, the workman  of the  present  case  should be paid  a  fair  and  reasonable compensation of wages of two months, in addition to the  %%- ages   of   one  month  already  paid  (exclusive   of   the retrenchment compensation). 30.  The  reason once again is the "heavy  load  of  surplus labour force" with the Management.  It is not shown that the said  reason is either incorrect as a fact or irrelevant  or impermissible in law. 31.  For the above reasons, this appeal  also fails  and  is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.