LexHINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD versus EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
v.
EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
September 7, 1978
lV. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ]
Constitution of India 1950--Article 136-Scope of in labour rnatters-
Article 43A-Explained-Participation of work1nen in lhe Management.
Utti1r Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Workers retrenched on grounds
-of losses-Tribunal found retrenchment unjustified-Ordered reinstatement with
back wages-.-Special leave refused regarding reinstatement-E11iployer if could·
.rt'open at the time of hearing.
Awarding full or {Xlrtial back wages-Principles for awarding-Employee's
A
B
c
•
fi11a11cia/ viability to pay back wages-If could be a factor for not awarding
full back wages.
1-
·-i
The management (Appellant) retrenched 56 of its workmen alleging non~
availability of raw material to utilise the full installed capacity, power shedding
D
limiting the working of the unit to 5 days a week and mounting Ios.ses.
As -a
result of negotiations between the parties, the retrenched workmen were ta-ten
back in service.
A few days later, however, the workmen demanded revision
Qf wage scales, but the appellant pleaded inability to revise the pay scales
in view uf lhe mounting losses. Thereafter, the employer retrenched 43 work-
men. 'r"he dispute resulting out of the retrenchment was referred to adjudica-
tion un<ler sec1ion 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
E
The Labour Court held that the real reason for retrenchment y,·as annoy-
ance felt by the management when the employees refused to agree to the terms
of settlen1ent and that it was not for the reasons stated by the employer.
The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the retrenched workmen with full
back wages.
In the Special leave petition the employer questioned the correctness of the
Labour Coort's view that the retrenched workmen should be reinstated.
This
Court rejected this prayer and limited the special leave to the question of
granting buck wages to the retrenched workmen ordered to be reinstated.
F
HELD : L Since the emoloyer's prayer in the special leave petition that
the retrenched workmen should not be reinestated was rejected by this Court
it meant that the Labour Court's view that retrenchment was unjustified was
G
correct For the reasons found by the Labour Court retrenchment \Vas moti6
vated and so inva1id. The workmen were entitled to the relief of reinstatement
from the date tlley were sought to be retrenched. The order of the Labour
Court on the question of reinstatement became final. [567 C-E]
2. Article 136 of the Constitution does not envisage this Court to be a
1egular Court of Appeal, but it confers & discretionary power on it to grant
B
special leave to appeal, inter a/ia, against the Award of any Tnbunal. The
scope and ambit of this vide constitutional discretionary power cannot be
_;.::
_..;._
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
exhaustively defined. It cannot be so construed as to confer a right to a
'-
party when he has none under the law. The Court will entertain a petition
for special leave in which a question of general public importance is involved
or when the decisions would shock the conscience of this Court. The Indus-
trial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained code and it seeks to
achieve social justice on the basis 6f collective bargaiining, conciliation and
arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and
II
the Tribunals are to a large extent free from restrictions of technical conside-
rations imposed on Courts. A free and liberaA exercise of the power under
Article 136 may materially affect the fundamental basis of such decisions,
viz., quick solution of such dispu~es to achieve industrial peace. [567 F-568 A]
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workmen ~
[1959] .Suppl. 2 SCR 136 M 140 referred to.
c
D
E
F
G
H
2. In the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that
the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service.
The common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifi~
cally enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this
branch of law. The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can
be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. [568 G-H]
3. Where termination of service is questioned as being invalid or ilExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.