LexKRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA versus N.V. PURNACHANDRA RAO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING
SOCIETY LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA.
v.
N.V. PURNACHANDRA RAO & ORS.
B
AUQUST 3, 1987
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.J
-\
Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966: ss. 40 &
41: Retrenchment of workmen by the establishment-/1/~ture of pro-
11'
ceedings under the Act-Employer-Whether to comply witlrs. 25F of -
c the Industrial Disputes Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: ss. 25F & 251-Workmen-
~
Services terminated under s. 40, A. P. Shops and Establishments Act-
Whether mtitled to relief under the Central Act.
0
Constitution of India, Art 254(2): Repugnancy between the special
provisions contained in an earlier law and general provisions of later
)..
law-Implications of.
Sub-section (1) of s. 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and
E
Establishments Act, 1966 interdicts the employer governed by the Act
from terminating the services of an employee without complying with
the conditions laid therein. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, ~-
1947 lays down conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen non-
compliance with which will bi; fatal to any order of retrenchment.
The petitioner-society retrenched the respondents on the ground
....,..
F that the business of the management did not warranUhe continuance of
its heavy establishment. In an appeal under s. 41(1) of the Act the
appellate authority set aside the orders and directed reinstatement of
the respondents. The Labour Court set aside the orders of the appellate
authority in respect of some of the respondents.
G
A Single Judge of the High Court found that the respondents were )--
'workmen' and the management was an 'industry' as defined in the
Industrial Disputes Act but dismissed the writ petition holding that they
could not claim the benefit of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in a
proceeding under s. 41 of the State Act, being of the view that there was
H
no scope either in the language of s. 40 of the State Act or its implication
making it obligatory to read the condition of s. 25F of the Central Act as.
728
·-
-;-
KRISHNA SOCIETY v. N.V.P. RAO
729
part of s. 40 of the State Act, that the statutory- authorities, created
A
under s. 41(1) and s. 41(3) of the State Act being creatures of the
statute, had no right to apply the provisions of s. 25F of the Central Act
to proceedings before them and that whereas the rights under the Cent-
ral Act could he agitated by a reference to a Labour Court the right
agitated under s. 41(1) ands. 41(3) was a personal right.
The Division Bench on appeal by the respondents held that the
orders of termination were unsustainable. It took the view that the
question of their retrenchment was governed bys. 25F.
B
In the special leave petition it was contended on behalf of the
management that the provisions of s. 40, which deal with termination of c
service in a shop or establishment contained in the State Act, which is a
later Act, being repugnant to the provisions contained in Chapter V-A
of the Central Act, which is an earlier law, should prevail as the assent
of the Presillent has been given to the State Act.
Dismissing the special leave petition,
•
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was right in holding that s. 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with, all the
terminations were illegal. The respondents were, therefore, entitled to
be reinstated in service with full back wages. [743A]
1.2 If the employees are 'workmen' and the management is an
'industry' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the action taken
0
E
by the management amounts to 'retrenchment', then the rights l!Dd
liabilities of the parties are governed by provisions of Chapter V -A of
that Act and the said rights and liabilities may be adjudicated upon and
enforced in proceedings before the authorities under s. 41(1) and F
s. 41(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. In the
instant case the Single Judge of the High Court had found that the res-
pondents were 'workmen' and the management was an 'industry' as
defined in the Central Act. [741H-742A, 738C]
t.3 Sub-section (1) of s. 25J of the Industrial Disputes Act lays G
-{ down that Chapter V-A shall have effect notwithstanding anything in-
consistent therewith contained in any other law. The proviso to that
sub-section, however, saves any higher benefit available to a workman
under any law, agreement or settlement or award. Sub-section (2) of
•
s. 2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.