LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN CABLE CO., LTD., CALCUTTA versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
38.C.R. SUPREME COUR'i: REPORTS 589 been paid on the basis of the trading results of the previous year and depended upon the profits earned in the previous year. In the .oircumstances it can- not be held that one month's pay as closing bonus is payable as an implied condition of service irres- pective of the profit made by the appellant. It seems to have been of the nature ·of profit bonus, even though it may have been paid at a uniform rate for ten years. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the tribunal and reject the claim of the. workmen for any closing bonus over and above that paid by the appellant for the year 1958. In the circumstances we order the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal aUowed. THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN CABLE CO., LTD., CALCUTTA v. ITS WORKMEN (B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SuBBA Rao, N. Ra.r.AGOPA.LA AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VENK.AT.AR.AM.A AIY.AR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Closure of branch-Retrenchment of workmen-Right to be absorbed in other branches-Branch if an industrial establishment-Individual dispute and industrial dispute-DiBtinction-Dispute raised by majority of workmen if an industrial dispute-Competence of State Government t~ make reference-"lndustrial dispute" "industrial establish- ment", meaning of-Industrial Dispute. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 2(k), 10, 25G. Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided : "Where any workman in an industrial csta: blishment •... is to be retrenched and he belongs to a 1962 Jardine ilendersen ' Lit. V, The W 011'mtn Wonchoo J. 1961 ·-- March 6. 1962 Tiu M augnn1nl of lndiata Cabl1 C.., lid. a a/cull• v. 111 Wor.bntn 590 SUPREME <;JOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. particular category of workmen in that establishment .... the employer shall orclinariJy retrench the \\·orkrnan who was the last to be employed in that category .... " The appellant company which was carrying on business in the 1nanufacture and sale of electric cables, wires etc., had a nurnber of branch(:; iucluding Arn!Jala all over India. ~ta registered office was at Calcutta. The business of the Ambala branch consisted, apart from the sale of goods manufactured by the appellaut, in the execution of cc1 tain contracts with the Government. After the contracts were completed the appel- lant considered that, having regard to the volume of its own busi.ness in that area, the 1naintcnancc of a branch at Arnbala was unrcmunerativc, and decided to close it. Accordingly on May 8, 1958, the appellant terminated the ,erviees of all its workmen at 1\mbala, numb,ering 11 in all, paid them their salaries etc., and wound up the branch. On a repre!entation made by six of the workmen who had hem discharged that the closure of the branch \Vas unjustified, that all the branches of the company formed 'one unit the retrenchment should be done according to All-India scnioritr basis, and that the workmen had a legal right to get employment in the other branches, the Punjab Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, on the questions whether the retrenchment was justified and legal under s. 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, !947, and whether the seniority of workmen in all the branches of the company should be pooled for the purpose of effecting retrenchment. By an order dated February 11, 1960, the Tribunal directed the appellant company to take back the six workmen in their employment with effect from May 8, 1958, so that there was no break in the continuity of service of any of them. The appellant challenged the legality of the order on the grounds, inter alia, (I) that after the closure of the branch at Ambala it had no place of business on the State of Punjab and that, in consequence, the Government of Pu?jab had no jurisdiction to make the reference, (2) that the disputes of the workmen were individual disputes and not industrial disputes as defined in the Act and that, therefore, the Governme.nt had no power to refer the same for adjudication, and (3) that, in any case, the branch at Ambala wa'i an industrial establish· ment within s. 25G of the Act and that having been ciosed no relief cou!d be granted to the \\'Orkrncii under that section. After the·Government of Punjab had made the reference, the Delhi Union and the Union of Kanpur branch appeared before the Tribunal and supported the cause of the six workmen. The --- 3 s.O.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.