SAHU MINERALS & PROPERTIES LTD. versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 06-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
, 
II 
263 
SAHU MINERALS & PROPERTIES LTD. 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & ORS. 
August 6, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALf;\, JJ.j 
lndustrja[ Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25F, proviso to sec. 25FFF(l) and 
section 33C(2)-Labour Court asked to decide retrrncl11nent compensation pay· 
able to workmen-Question of retrenchment or the closure of factory beyond 
control of employer, if could be decided by Labour Court-Item 10 to Third 
Schedule. if attracted. 
The Government of Bihar sent to the Labour Court, Chota Nagpur Division, 
Ranchi, application in respect of 73 workers of the appellant for decision under 
sec. J3C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for retrenchment compensation. The 
contention of the appellant was that it was a case of closure for reasons beyond 
its control and that, therefore, the workmen were entitled to compensation under 
the proviso to sub-section ( 1) of sec. 25FFF of the Act and not to retrenchment 
compensation. The workers contended that they were eot!tled to retrenchment 
compensation under sec. 25F. The labour Court held that it was a case of w 
trenchment. 
The writ petitions filed by the emJ?loyer in .the High Court have 
failed and these appeals have been preferred to this Court ort the ·basis .of the 
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court. 
, 
Dismissing the uppeals, 
HEID.: (i) It was competent to the Labour Court to declde whether the 
case. before it was a case of retrenchment compensation or the proviso to sub·sec~ 
(1) of section 25FFF was attracted on closure of the establishment. Even the 
employer does not dispute that the workmen are entitled to compensation. It 
only says that the compensation should be calculated on a particular basis diffe· 
rent from the basis on which the workmen claim. The claim also falls under 
Chapter VA of the Act. 
[266H; 267B-C] 
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Ra/agopalan, (1964] 3 S.C.R. 140 relied 
on. 
U.P. Electric Company v. R. K. Shukla [1970] I S.C.R. 507 and South Arcot 
Elect. Co. v. N. K. Khan [1969] 2 S.C.R. 902, referred to. 
(ii) Item No. 10 of the Third Schedule to the Act does not say that all ques-
tions arising out of retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishments have 
to be decided by Industrial Tribunal. This entry refers to cases where the right 
to retrench v.urkers or to close an establishment is disputed and that question is 
referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. In that case the Tribunal 
will be competent to decide whether the closure or retrenchment was justified and 
whether the retrenched workmen should be reinstated or the workers in the estab· 
lishment purported to have been closed should be continued to be paid on the 
bas.l3 that the so·called closure was no closure at all. In the present case the 
workmen do not ask for reinstatement. 
They 
accept the termination of the 
services and ask for compensation. The only dispute is about the compensation 
whether it is to be paid under s. 25F or 25FFF. Item 10 of Third Schedule will 
not cover such a case. 
[267D-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 1266 & 
1267 of 1969. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 29th July, 1968 of the 
Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdictioµ Case No. 61 of 1967. 
H. K. Puri and K. K. Mohan, for ihe appellant. 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
D. Goburdhan, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (In both the appeals) 
Respondent No. 21 (In C.A. No. 1266/69) and for respondent No. 60 
(Jn C.A. No. I 267169). 
A. K. Nag, for respondent Nos. 3-19 (In C.A. No. 1266/69) and 
llor respondent Nos. 4, 5, 7-9, 11~32, 35-42, 44-52, 54-58 (In C.A. No. 
1267169). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
· ALAGIRISWAMI, J. By two notifications dated 22-6-65 
and 
28-8-65 the Gove=ent of Bihar sent to the Labour Court, Chota 
Nagpur Division, Ranchi, applications in respect of 73 workers of the 
appellant for decision under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 
for retrenchment compensation. The employer contended that it was 
a case oft closure for reasons beyond its control and that therefore the 
workmen were entitled to compensation under the proviso to sub-sec-
tion (1) of s.25FFF of the Act and not to retrenchment eompensation. 
The workers contended, however, that they were entitled to retrench-
ment compensation under s.25F. The Labour Court held that it was 
a case of retrenchment. Two writ petitions filed by the employer

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