AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. versus S. TAKI BILGRAMI & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 12-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. 
v. 
S. TAKI BILGRAMI & ORS. 
August 12, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAID!ALINGAM AND 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Bombay !11dustrial Relations Act (I I of 1947), ss. 42(1), 46(2) and' 
Schedule If item I-Closing of shiji and terminating emplop11e11t of 
surplus staff-If reduction of posts. 
The appellant company was the proprietor of certain mills, which 
w:is working three shifts in some of its departments. The third shifr 
"as closed and the appellant issued a month"s notice to three clerks 
terminating their services. The subordinate tribunals and the High 
Court held that it was a case of reduction of posts of clerks without 
following the procedure prescribed by he Bombay Industrial Relations 
Act 1946. namely, giving of notice of change as required by s. 42, and 
thus committed an illegal change in contravention of s. 46, in respect 
of an industrial matter in item 1 of Schedule II of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The reply 
sent by the management justifying thei1· 
action, tothe Union of workers, indicates, that they had only effected 
a retrenchment of clerks whom they considered to be surplus. There 
was no admission that they had effected a reduction in the posts of 
clerks. Read as a whole, the letter only shows that the termination 
was necessitated by the closure of the third shift and that the reduc-
tion in the clerical strength in consequence of such termination did 
not result in any increase in the work load of others. 
(155 B-D] 
(2) 
Unless there is a reduction in posts item I of Scch. II will have 
no application. The item refers to reduction intended to be of perma-
nent or semi-permanent character in the number of persons to be emp-
loyed in a shift, that is, the shift is not abolished but is working and the 
employer effects a reduction in the number of persons employed in the 
shift in consequence of which the work load on the remaining persons 
may be more_ 
Under such a contingency it may be considered that 
the employer has effected a reduction in the posts occupied by the per-
:-(\ns \vhose services have 
been terminated. 
But 
\\'hen the working 
of the entire shift is stopped there is no question of a reduction in the 
number of persons employed in a shift. On the other hand, it is a case 
of termination of employment of all the persons employed in the shift 
\\hich has been stopped. ]156 A-HJ 
Chaganlal Textile Mills Private Ltd. v. Chatisgoan 
Girni Kamgar 
['nivn, A.LR. 1959 S.C. 722, followed. 
(3) In the present case, on the closure of the third. shift wha.t the: 
employer did was to retrench the employees working 111 that shift 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 1 S.C.R. 
they were found to be surplus in the establishment. It was a case of 
A 
reduction of persons employed and not one of reduction of the number 
of persons employed. Hence, it was not a case of reduction of posts. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 
1922 of 1966. 
[157 F-HJ 
Appeal No. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated 
January 5, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in 
Special Civil Application No. 1261 of 1963. 
K. K. Jain and H. K. Puri for the appellant. 
B 
B. P. Maheshwari and S. M. Jain for respondent No. 
C 
2. 
G. L. Sanghi and P. N. 
Tiwari, for 
respondent 
No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J.-The short 
question 
that arises 
D 
for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether 
by terminating the services of the three clerks in question, 
the appellant Company had 
made any illegal change 
within the meaning of s. 46 of the Bombay Industrial 
Relations Act., 1946 (Bombay Act XI of 1947) (herein-
E 
after to be referred as the Act). 
The facts 
leading up to the appeal may be 
stated. 
The appellant Company was the former proprietor of the 
New Pralhad Mills, Bombay. At the 
material time, 
namely, 1957, the mills were working three shifts in some 
of their 
departments. 
On December 
8, 1957, the 
F 
third shift was closed. On January 7, 1958 the appel-
lant issued notices to the three clerks Nayak, Kelwalkar 
and Mhatre, with whom we are concerned in these pro-
ceedings terminating their services with effect from February 
8, 1958. 
The second respondent herein, the Union of the 
workers employed in the mills, by their letter dated 
February 7, 1958 requested the management to cancel 
G 
the notices 
terminating the services of the clerks. The 
management sent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.