THE SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 13-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

511> 
A 
THE SINDHU RESETI'LEMENT CORPORATION LID. 
B 
v. 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
September 13, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes-Employee of 11 .company emplo1/ed in its 
subsidiary compan11~Termiiiation with retrenchment compensation 
by subsidiary company-If retrenchment compensation payable by 
parent company also-Demand for by payment of retrenchment 
compensation, not for reinstatement-Reference, if competent. 
The services of respondent No. 3-a permanent· employee of ap. 
pellant-corporation, were placed at the disposal of appellant's sub-
C sidiary company, The subsidiary company by an order appointed 
respondent No. 3 on probation and stated that he would be con-
firmed after the end of probation period, After respondent No. 3 
had worked with the subsidiary company for more than the 
probationary period, his services were terminated and he was paid 
retrenchment compensation. Respondent N0. 3 asserted continuance 
of his employment under the appellant, which was declined. There-
D upon he demanded retrenchment compensation from the appellant 
also, which, too, was refused. The matter was referred for adjudica-
tion by the State Government, and the Tribunal directed reinstate-
ment of respondent No. 3 with back! wages. In appeal to this Court, 
the 
appellant Corporation contended that (i) respondent No. 3 
having been given permanent appointment in the subsidiary com-
pany, and havingJ obtained retrenchment compensation from that 
company, could not claim that he was still holding a post in the 
E appellant-corporation and could not, therefore, claim reinstate-
ment; and (ii) the dispute that was raised was confined to com-
pensation for retrenchment and did not relate to the validity of the 
retrenchment or reinstatement, so that the State Governmellt hacl. 
no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. 
HELD: (i) Respondent No. 3 could not claim reinstatement in the 
appellant-corporation. 
Though he did not cease to be an employee of the appellant 
F when his services were first placed at the disposal of the subsidiary 
company by the appellant, he ceased to be an employee of the 
appellant later when he was confirmed in the subsidiary company, 
He also accepted the retrenchment compensation at the time of 
termination of the employment in the subsidiary company, In case 
he had continued to be in the service of the appellant he would 
not have been entitled to retrenchment compensation' from ·the 
G subsidiary company and, even if the subsidiary company had any 
.legal liability to contribute towards his retrenchment compen-
sation which might have become ultimately P.SYable to him on his 
retrenchment from the appellant-corporation; that amount would 
have been paid by the subsidiary company to the appellant and hot 
to respondent No. 3 himself. Further he was n_ot entitled to any 
retrenchment compensation when he left the service of the appel-
lant willingly for there was no compulsion on him to go to the 
ll subsidiary company, [S19C-F] 
N_okes v,. Doncaster Amalagamated Collieries Ltd., [1940] A.C. 1014 
held mapphcable. 
· 
(Ii) The respondents, in their . claims put forward before the 
management of the appellant requested for payment of retrench-
ment compensation and did not raise. any dispute for reinstatement, 
ol6 
SUPllBMK COURT REPORTS 
fl.968J I s.c.a. 
Since no such dispute about reinstatement was raised by the A. 
respondents before the management of the appellant, 
the State 
Government was not competent to refer a question of reinstatement 
as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal. The dis-· 
pute that the State Government could have referred competently 
was the dispute relating to payment of retrenchment compensation· 
by the appellant to respondent· No. 3 which had been re"fused. A 
mere demand to a Government. without a dispute being raised 
by the workmen with their employee cannot become an industrial B 
dispute. [522H-523D]. 
CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 656 of 
1966. 
Appeal ~y special leave from the f udgment and order dated 
June 29/30, 1964 of the 
Gujarat High Court in Special Civit 
Application No. 589 of 1961. 
C 
A. K. Sen and// H. Hingorani, for the appellant 
'R. Gopalakrish,;an, for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the C6urt was delivered by 
Bhargava, l. R. S. Ambwaney, respondent No. 3, y,as em-
ployed by the Sindhu Resettlement Corporation L

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