PARRY & CO. LTD. versus P. C. PAL & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 976 · Decided: 27-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PARRY & co. LID. 
v. 
P. C. PAL & ORS. 
November 21, 1968 
(J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispute-Decision to Reorganise 
business-Retl'enchment 
in consequence-Propriety of Tribunal to go into question. 
West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, rr. 77(1) and proviso-
Notice given 2 days prior, if proviso applicable. 
Constitution of India, Art. 226-Certiorari-When can lie. 
In pursuance of its policy of reorganising its business by concen· 
!rating more on manufacturing side than agency business, the appellant· 
company gave up more than half of its agencies in Calcutta and some 
agencies in other places including Madras. The Union representing the 
workmen wrote to the Labour Commissioner to intervene stating that · 
due to the company's said policy it feared retrenchment. The company 
served notices on some of the employees for retrenchment to take effect 
two days thereafter. 
Also notice was given to the Labour Commissioner 
and the Conciliation Officer as required under s. 25F ( c) of the industrial 
Disputes Act. On reference of the dispute to the industrial Tribunal, 
the company justified the retrenchment and the Manager of the Calcutta 
branch gave evidence that retrenchment was done in pursuance of the 
said policy decision taken by the company. The Tribunal l)eld that 
a 
good case for retrenchment was not made out and ordered reinstatement. 
The Tribunal did not accept the manager's evidence holding that the 
development on the manufacturing side of the company's business should 
have been contemporaneous with the surrender of agencies in Calcutta. 
The Tribunal also held that the policy decision was actuated by paro-
chial considerations for transferring the company's resources from Cal-
cutta to Madras, that there was 
overload of work on the 
remaining 
employees; that the retrenchment could have been 
avoided by 
trans-
ferring the retrenched employees to other branches specially as their 
conditions of service included the liability of being transferred; and that 
the retrenchment was in breach of s. 25F(c) as the notice of retrench-
ment was two days prior to the date of the retrenchment and not with 
immediate effect, the proviso to r. 77(1) of the West Bengal Industrial 
Disputes Rules, 1958, did not apply and a notice of one month, as re-
quired by sub-cl. (1) of that rule, was necessary. 
The company filed a 
petition for a writ of certiorari. The Single Judge of the High Court set 
•side the award and remanded the case to the Tribunal only for enforc-
ing the retrenchmeqt according to the principle of "last come first go''. 
The Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, agreed with the findings 
of the Tribunal and held that the Single Judge was not competent to 
interfere with those findings. 
In appeal this Court, 
HELD : Some of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and which 
influenced its verdict were beyond its competence. 
The rest were either 
speculative or contrary to the evidence on record and were consequently 
!table to be set aside in a "Tit petition for certiorari. 
(i) A writ of certiorari i" generally granted when a court has •cted 
without or in excess of its jurisdiction. It jg available, in those cases 
• 
B 
·• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
.. 
G 
H 
A 
• 
B 
• 
c 
D 
• 
E 
G 
H 
PARRY & CO, V. P. C. LAL 
977 
where a tribunal, though competent to enter upon an enquiry, acts. in 
flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or violates the. prmc1ples 
of natural justice where no particular procedure 
IS. prescbbe.d. 
But 
a mere wrong decision cannot be corrected by 
~ W!It ?f certiorari ~s 
tllat would be using it as the cloak of an appeal m d1sgruse but a mam-
fest error apparent on the face of the proceedings based on a clear ig-
norance or disregard of the provisions of law or absence of or excess 
of jurisdiction, when shown, can be so corrected. [985 C--EJ 
Basappa v. Nagappa, [1955] S.C.R. 250, Dharangadhara 
Chemical 
Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, [1957] S.C.R. 152 and Andhra Pra-
desh & Ors. v. Sree Ram Rao, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1723, followed. 
(ii) The Tribunal wrongly rejected the comp~ny's evidence on the 
ground that the policy decision being the function of the Board of Direc-
tors, the Manager was not competent to depose about it and that if ~e 
company wanted to establish it, it should . have. ~roduced a resolut~on 
of the Board. In its letter to the Labour COmm1ss10ner and also durmg 
conciliation proceedings the union had as

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