BANARAS ICE FACTORY LIMITED versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 28-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
143 
earlier that it is reasonable to assume that standardisa-
tion of retrenchment 
compensation 
an<l 
doing away 
with 
a perplexing 
variety of factors 
for granting 
retrenchment compensation may well 
have been the 
purposes of s. 25F, though the basic consideration 
must 
have 
been the 
granting 
of 
unemployment 
relief. 
However, on our view of the construction of s. 25F, no 
compensation need be paid 
by the 
appellants in the 
two appeals. 
It is unnecessary 
therefore 
to 
decide 
whether, in other cases of a different character, s. 25F 
imposes a reasonable restriction or not. 
In the result, we must allow the two appeals and set 
aside the decisions of the 
High Court of Bombay in the 
two cases. 
We hold that the appellants in the two 
appeals are not liable to , pay any compensation 
under 
s. 25F of the Act to their erstwhile workmen who were 
not retrenched within the meaning of that expression 
in that section. 
In the 
circumstances of these two 
cases, the parties must bear 
their own costs through-
out. 
Appeals allowed. 
BANARAS ICE FACTORY LIMITED 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(S. R. DAs C. J., 
BHAGWATI, 
Vi;:NKATARAMA 
AYYAR 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ) 
Industrial Dispute-Appeal 
pending before Labour Appellate 
Tribunal-Closure of factory-Termination of se1·vices of workmen 
without permission of the Tribunal-Legality-"Discharge", meaning 
of-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (XLVlll of 
]950), SS. 22, 23. 
Clause (b) of s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) 
Act, 1950, provides that during the pendency of any appeal under 
the Act no employer shall discharge any workmen concernetl in 
such appeal, save with the express permission in writing of the 
Appellate Tribunal, and s. 23 enables any employee to make a 
complaint in writing to such 
Appellate Tribunal if the employer 
contravenes the provisions of s. 22 during the pendency of proceed-
ings before the said Tribunal. 
1956 
Hari;rasad Shiv· 
shankar Shukla 
v. 
A. D. Divikar 
S.K.Das ]. 
1956 
BanMar Ju FtMtny 
Limiltd 
v. 
111 Wor.tmm 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
During the pendency of an appeal filed l:icfore the Labour 
Appellate Tribunal the appellant company finding it difficult to run 
µie factory decided to close it do\vn and gave notice to all the work~ 
m_cn that their services would be terminated upon the expiry of 
thirty days from July 16, 1952. 
On August 31, 1952, a compTaint 
was made on behalf of the workmen to the Tribunal under s. 23 of 
the Act that the appellant had discharged the!Il without the permis-
sion in writing of the Tribunal and had thereby contravened the 
provisions of s. 22 of the Act. It was found that the closure of the 
· appellant's bu~iness was bona fide. 
Held, that s. 22 of the Act is applicable only to an existing or 
running industry and that the termination of the services of all 
workmen, on a real and bona fide closure of business, is not 'dis-
charge' within the meaning of s. 22(b) of the Act. 
/. K. Hosiery Factory v. lAbour Appellate Tribunal of India 
(A.LR. 1956 All. 498), approved on the point of construction of s. 22 
of the Act. 
Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Pipraich Sugar Mills Ma2door 
Union (1956) S.C.R. 872 followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRismcnoN : Civil Appeal No. 135 
of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated 
October 
30, 1952, 
of 
the 
Labour Appellate 
Tribunal of 
India, Allahabad, in Misc. Case No. C-146 
of 1952. 
R. R. Biswas, for the appellant. 
Sukumar Chose ( amicus curiae), for the respondents. 
1956. November 28. The 
Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
S. K. DAs J.-This is an appeal 
by special leave 
from the judgment and order of the Labour Appellate 
Tribunal of India at Allahabad dated October 30, 1952. 
The relevant facts are these. The 
Banaras Ice 
Fac-
tory Limited, the appellant before us, was incorporated 
on September 13, 
1949, as a private limited company 
and was carrying on the busines< of manufacturing ice 
in the city of Banaras, though its registered office was 
in Calcutta. The factory worked as a seasonal factory 
and had in its employment about 25 workmen at all 
material times. These workmen were employed from 
the month of March to the month of September every 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
145 
vear. 
The appellant company got into financial diffi-
~ulties on account of trade depression, rise in the price 
of materials and increase in the wage

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