http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHIV KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1994

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  (4) 445        JT 1994 (4)   162  1994 SCALE  (5)839

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J.- Leave granted.  Heard learned counsel for  the parties. 2.This Court had been approached by filing the connected SLP by  one  Shiv  Kumar, D.P. Singh  and  D.H.  Woodhead  Ltd., Employees’  Union through Shiv Kumar, its  Joint  Secretary. An  application has, however, been filed, registered  as  IA No. 3 of 1994, in which it has been averred that Shiv  Kumar has  settled the matter with the management and the  workmen who are challenging the order of the High Court may be taken as  those  whose names have been indicated  in  the  amended cause title - their number being 21.    We allow this IA. 3.These appellants have felt aggrieved at their retrenchment pursuant to the permission given by the specified  authority under  Section  25-N of the Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947, hereinafter   the  Act.   The  permission  granted  by   the authority came to be challenged before the High Court.   It, however,  dismissed the petition.  Hence this  appeal  under Article 136 of the Constitution. 4.What is required to be noted is that Respondent 3 M/s D.H. Woodhead  Ltd.  approached the specified authority  to  seek permission  to  retrench 79 of its workmen.   The  authority granted permission to retrench 58 workmen, after the  matter had   come   to  be  discussed  and  settled   between   the representatives  of  the management and workmen.   The  High Court  was approached by the aforesaid Shiv Kumar  and  D.P. Singh  contending,  inter alia, that the union  leaders  had colluded with the management, and so, the settlement arrived at was bad in the eye of law and the workmen concerned could not  have been retrenched on the basis of  that  settlement. Another  point urged was that the workmen concerned had  not been personally served with 447 the  copy of the application as required by Section 25-N  of the  Act.   The  High Court did not  accept  either  of  the

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

contentions.   As to the non-service of personal notice,  it observed  that  bald assertion in this regard could  not  be accepted   as   correct,  more  particularly,   when   their representatives  had  been  duly  heard  by  the   specified authority.   As  to the hearing of the  representatives,  we would observe that the workmen having alleged collusion,  no reliance could have been placed on that. 5.The point for examination, therefore, is whether there  is material  on record to show that the workmen  concerned  had been  served with the copies of the application as  required by Section 25-N read with Rule 76-A of the Industrial Rules, 1957, which was the point on which notice was ordered on 21- 1-1994.   In  reply  to  this  contention  advanced  by  the workmen,  what  has  been stated by the  management  in  its counter-affidavit  is that the notices had been sent to  all workmen  under postal certificates and proof of service  had been submitted to the specified authority.  Learned  counsel appearing  for  the  management  produces  before  us   some certificates evincing posting of some letters to the workmen concerned on 26-12-1992. 6.We have not felt safe to decide the controversy at hand on the  basis of the certificates produced before us, as it  is not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time. To assure our mind that the notices had really been sent out to  the workmen concerned, we perused the application  which had been filed by the management seeking permission.  We did so because Rule 76-A(2) requires that the application  shall be made in triplicate and copies of the same shall be served by the employer on the workmen concerned and "proof to  that effect  shall also be submitted by the employer  along  with the application".  But the application (Annexure A) has  not mentioned  anything about "proof’ of service to the  workmen concerned.   The  statement in  the  counter-affidavit  that proof  of  service  had  been  submitted  to  the  specified authority has not satisfied our mind in this regard. 7.The permission granted to retrench 21 appellant-workmen of the  respondent-management cannot, therefore, be said to  be in  accordance  with  law.   As,  however,  permission   for retrenchment was sought for on the grounds mentioned in para 23   of  the  aforesaid  application  which  the   specified authority  regarded as just and proper, we are of  the  view reinstatement  would not be the proper order to  be  passed, and interest of justice would be met if, apart from what  is due  to  each  of  the  aforesaid  workmen  as  retrenchment compensation visualised by Section 25-F(b) of the Act, a sum of Rs 10,000 is paid to each of them.  From the amount which would   become  so  due,  payment  if’  any   made   towards retrenchment compensation shall be deducted; so also, if any further  sum  had  been received by  any  of  the  aforesaid workmen.   The  sum of money which would  become  ultimately payable, after the deduction(s), if any to be made, shall be remitted to each of the aforesaid workmen within a period of two months from today. 448 8.   The appeal is allowed accordingly. 449