MACKINON MACKENZIE & COMPANY LTD. versus MACKINNON EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 25-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 45 
MACKINON MACKENZIE & COMPANY LTD. 
A 
v. 
MACKINNON EMPLOYEES UNION 
(Civil Appeal No. 5319 of2008) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) 
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947: 
s. 25F - Retrenchment notice - Conditions precedent 
for retrenchment- One month's notice and one month's salary 
B 
c 
- Held: In the instant case, neither one month's notice served 
nor one month's salary in lieu of retrenchment given to the D 
retrenched workmen - Thus, there was non-compliance of 
s.25F - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Schedule 
IV Item No. 9- Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 -
E 
r. 81. 
s.25FFA- Notice on the State Government- Held: In 
the instant case, 60 days notice to the State government 
regarding the closure of unit stating its reason for the same F 
not given -
Thus mandatory provision uls.25FFA not 
complied with. 
s.25G - Retrenchment- Challenged on the ground 
that no list of seniority was put on notice board as required u/ G 
r. 81; that there was breach of s. 25G as principle of 'last come 
first go' was not followed- Held: There were no valid reasons 
to justify the action of the Company in not following the 
principle of 'last come first go' as mandated u/s. 25G rlw r. 81 
of the Bombay Rules to retrench the concerned workmen H 
45 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
who were senior to the workmen who were retained in the 
department - Further, non display of category wise seniority 
list was also against the law- There was clear breach of s. 25G 
r!w r. 81 of Bombay Rules. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the Statement of Reasons for 
retrenchment, the appellant-Company stated that it was 
not able to improve its revenue and was having 
c cumulative losses and was finding itself in great 
difficulty in paying salaries to the staff on time. The 
retrenchment notice served upon the concerned 
workmen was an action of closure of Clearing and 
Forwarding section of appellant company. The finding 
D that the workmen were retrenched from their services 
on account of the alleged closure of the Clearing and 
Forwarding department/unit of the appellant-Company, 
was not proved by the appellant-Company. If a statutory 
provision prescribes a particular procedure to be 
E followed by the authority to do an act, it should be done 
in that particular manner only. If such procedure is not 
followed in the prescribed manner as provided under 
the statutory provision, then such act of the authority is 
F held to be null and void ab initio in law. The statutory 
provisions contained in Section 25FFA of the l.D. Act 
manda1te that the intended closure notice to the 
Appropriate Government should be served atleast 60 
days before the date on which the Company intended 
G to close down its concerned department/unit. As could 
be seen from the pleadings and the findings recorded 
by the Industrial Court, there was a categorical finding 
of fact recorded that there was no such mandatory 
notice served on the State Government by the appellant-
H 
MACKINON MACKENZIE & CO. LTD. v. MACKINNON 
47 
EMPLOYEES UNION 
Company. The object of serving of such notice on the A 
State Government is to see that the it can find out 
whether or not it is feasible for the Company to close 
down a department/unit of the Company and whether 
the concerned workmen ought to be retrenched from 
their service, made unemployed and to mitigate the B 
hardship of the workmen and their family members. 
Further, the said provision of the l.D. Act is the statutory 
protection given to the concerned workmen which 
prevents the appellant-Company, from retrenching the C 
workmen arbitrarily and unreasonably & in an unfair 
manner. [Paras 25, 28, 33, 35] [71-D; 73-F-G; 82-C-D; 83-
F-H; 84-A-C] 
2. Section 25F clause .(a) states that no workman 0 
employed in continuous service for not less than one 
year under an employer shall be retrenched until the 
workman has been given one month's notice in writing 
indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period 
of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in E 
lieu of such notice, wages for the period of r :>tice. In the 
case on hand, the workman were served with the 
retrenchment notice on 27 .07 .1992 stating that their 
services stood retrenched from the close of business 
hours on 04.08.1992 in terms of the reasons appended F 
to the said notice and further stated 

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