LexNATIONAL IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. & ORS. D c D ' G H v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. January 17, 1967 (M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. JviITTER, JJ.J Industrial dispUtes--One reference-when can be made in respect to,. several concerns--Gratuity, comprehensive order, if can be made--Con- tract labour, abolitiol!, if Tribunal can order-/nd!l$1rial Disputes Act, (14 of 1947) S. 25F-Notice-Requirements. The appellants are four public limited companies, all separately regis- tered under the Indian Companies Act, and all producing iron and sleel goods though of different type. They had a common Gen.era! Manager, wlw later became their Works Manager; they had a common time office, a common canteen and a common Labour Officer. By one order of reference, certain industrial disputes between the appellants (described in the reference as first appellant and "their allied conerns") and their workmen, were referred for adjudication. All the companies were not interested in all the disputes. The Indu.strial Tribunal gave an award against the appellants. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that ( i) as all companies were not concerned in all items of dispute, one order of reference embracing all of them, should not have been made; (ii) the comprehensive order of gratuity binding on all the companies was bad as the Tribunal considered only balance sheets, and profit and Joss accounts and other documents of the first ap~Jlant and did not have be- fore it those of the other companies; (iii) Tnbunal was wrong in holding that the retrenchment of a workman was illegal as s. 25F of the Act had not been complied with; and (iv) the award abolishing contract labour employed by one of the companies was wrong as it would place the said concern in a very disadvantageous position compared to other concern which did similar kind of work. HELD: (i) In order to find out whether there was sufficient func- tional integrality between the employers and whether it was proper to have one reference in respect of the four concerns which were separate entities in the eye of law, it was necessary to take an overall picture of their activities and the interest, if any,. which they had in common. [395 GJ The things the appellants had in common were sufficient to show a community of interest so far as industrial disputes were concerned. If then wages, the dearness allowance or b~nefit of gratuity or leave rules were altered in one without affecting the others, the industrial peace and harmony in the other establishments were bound to be disturbed. All tho four concerns filed written statements which appear to haYe been drafted by the same draftsman, and same set of lawyers represented them. At no point of time was it ever shown to the Tribunal that there was any possi- bility of conflict of interest between them. Making separate orders of reference in the cases of the four establishments would only have multi-, plied costs enormously without any corresponding benefit to anybody. It was also patent from the course of the proceedings that it was only the first appellant which played a major part in the adjudication before the Tribunal. The other three concerns were content to abide by what was done by the first appellant. [395 H; 396 A-B, H; 397 Bl W•nger & Co. v. Their Workman, [1963] II L.L.J. 403 at 308 followed. 392 SUPREME COUU REPORTS (1967] 2 S.C.R. Worli.111a11 oj J)iniakuchi ft'a l::srate v. The A1a11age111r111 of Di1na- A •uchi T•a Ertat<' [1958] S.C.R. 1156, referred to. (ii) The scheme of gratuity as frilmcd \\'as quite a reasonable one on the facts and figure• presented by the first appellant. The three con- ~ems v.-crc content to make the first appellant their mouthpiece in this respect, or they must have felt that the facts and figures, if disclosed, would have been such as would go against them and they delibco·ately refrained from producing them. [399 A] B Burhanpur Tapti Mills I.id. '. 11. 'J'. ,\(ii/' .\fn~door Snng/i, (1965 I L.L.J. 453. followed. (iii) When a workman is asked to leave forthwith he has to be paid at tbe tin1c '"·bcn he is askc<l to go and cannot be a.~ked to collect his due:; afterwards. The nolice, in this case, bore the date November 15, 1958, terminating C 'iCrviCCS of the workman from November 17, and a;king him to colle<:t one month's wages in lieu of notice on November 20, 1958 or thereafter. So >. 25P bad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.