LexBHARAT BARREL & DRUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LIMITED versus BHARAT BARREL EMPLOYEES UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- 1 I BHARAT BARREL & DRUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LIMITED v. BHARAT BARREL EMPLOYEES UNION APRIL 9, 1987 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] A B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. 10, 25F & 25FFF-Res judicata-Doctrine of-Applicability to industrial disputes-Whether a ~- person is or not an employee cannot be reagitated in a later industrial dispute if it has been finally decided in an earlier dispute. C In the factory of the appellant-Company there were about 1100 ~ permanent as well as temporary workmen. On account of non-avail- , ability of raw materials and other compelling circumstances the appellant-Company issned a 'closure notice' dated September 30, 1971 intimating all its workmen that their services would stand terminated due to the closure of the factory with effect from November 1, 1971 and that they would be paid compensation under s. 2SFFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the workmen indulged in go slow tact- ics and various acts of sabotage rendering the running of factory and y office virtually impossible and.an atmosphere of terror, intimidation and vilific.l!tion prevailed. On October 30, 1971 the workers and mem- bers of the staff became more and more aggressive and after threaten- ing the managerial staff resorted to acts of rioting, hooliganism and destroyed considerable part of the Company's properties. To control the situation police had to be summoned. The workers became more ). violent and prevented the Directors and Senior Officers from leaving the factory and threw missiles on them and the police. A good number of ·f Police Officers and Constables were injured and the police the!l arrested about 183 workers. D E F The Company terminated the services of the workmen with immediate effect by its notice dated October 30, 1971 issued under the G Standing Orders applicable to its employees and the notice was duly published. Thereafter, the workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal being I. T. No. 325 of1971. H 825 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. A The faetory was completely closed down from November 1, 1971 and there was no production till May, 1972. Pursuant to notice dated y June 7, 1972 hy the appellant, many workmen rejoined the factory. Before the Tribunal the case of the Union and the workers was that the services of the workers were terminated due to closure and B although the Tribunal cannot go into the question of legality or illegality of the closure, yet they would be entitled to compensation under f- s. 25FFF of the Industrial Dipsutes Act, 1947. The contention of the appellant-company was that the workers were validity discharged on October 30, 1971 under Standing Order 21 i.e. before the alleged ~- - • closure became operative and that it was not liable to pay compensation c under s. 25 FFF. The question before the Tribunal was whether the workmen con- ~- tinned to be in employment till the closure took effect on November 1, 1971 or whether they ceased to be the employees of the appellant on October 30, 1971 or October 31, 1971 by virtue of the notice of the D discharge issued under Standing Order 21. The Tribunal held that the workers were validly discharged on 30th October, 1971 before their services could he terminated due to closure and, therefore, could not he said to have been retrenched due to 'i closure; that the workers' services stand to have been terminated at. E least from 10.30 a.m. on October 31, 1971 when the order of discharge became effective; that thereafter the workers were not in service of the company and also were not in .the service at the time of the alleged closure and that since the termination of services of the workers is not connected with the closure, they would not be entitled to any compensa- f tion due to closure. The reference was rejected by the Tribunal by its F order dated October 30, 1974. The award remained unchallenged and \;- became final. Thereafter at the instance of 440 workers another reference being IT No. 245 of 1975 was made. The Tribunal held that the workmen included in the Schedule to the reference should be deemed to have been G retrenched on March 20, 1980 i.e. the date of the Award, that they were entitled to retrenchment compensation under s. 25 F of the Act and they 'r- were entitled to reoover 75% of their hack wages from October 31, 1971 till M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.