WORKMEN OF SUDDER WORKSHOP OF JOREHAUT TEA CO. LTD. versus ITS MANAGEMENT AND VICE-VERSA

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 01-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

966 
A 
WORKMEN OF SUDDER WORKSHOP OF JOREHAUT 
8 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
TEA CO. LTD. 
v. 
J 
ITS MANAGEMENT AND VICE-VERSA 
May 1, 1980 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA RllDDY, JJ.] 
New Pica-Article 136 of "the Cons1itution-Supre1ne l'ourt cannot accept 
.,,. 
new plea not taken earlier. 
lndustri/ll Diputes Act, Sections 25F and 25G, scope of-Back wages pay-
nJent of. 
The Management Tea Co. Ltd. appellant in C. A. 1538/71 retrenched on. 
November 5, 1966, 23 workmen, 16 of whom were paid retrenchment compen-
sation allegedly in term. of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act based 
on wages obtaining prior to Wage Board Award, which came into force on 
1-4~66 retroactively and in the order of 'last come, first go', while the services 
of other seven were terminated, although on payment of retrenchment com~ 
pensation, allegedly in breach of Section 25G of the Act, i.e. out of turn. The 
dispute that was raised was decided by the Tribunal which upheld the validly 
of the retrenchment of the 16, but set aside the termination of the other seven. 
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's Award and hence the appeals both 
by the workmen and the management after obtaining special leave. 
Dismissing both the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The plea that the amount paid by way of retrenchment com-
pensation envisaged in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, not having 
been computed as per the revised pay scales as per the Wage Boe.rd Award, 
fell short of what was legally due and hence there was non-compliance is not 
tenable because before the Tribunal this contention was neither pleaded nor 
proved·. There was \no hint of it in the Award. Jn the High Court this new 
plea based on the facts was not permitted. Further the Wage Boards' .A ward 
was subsequent ro the retrenchment 
although retroactively applied and 
the. 
\vorkmen had accepted the retrenchnient compensation on the wages prevalent 
at the time of the retrenchment. In the absence of any basis for this new plea 
Supreme Court cannor reopen cm ancient matter of 1966. But the 16 Work· 
men, being admittedly eligible for the Wage Board scale, would be paid the 
difference for the period between 1-4-66 to 5-11-66. 
[969 A-BJ 
2. Se<:tion 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act postulates that ordinarily the 
'last come, first g~ will be the methodology of retrenchment. Of course, it 
is not an inflexible rule and extra-ordinary situations may justify variations. 
There must be valid reason for this decision, and, obviously, the burden is on 
the Management to substantiate the special ground for depsrture from the 
rule. 
Surely, valid and justifiable reasons are 
for the management to make 
our, and if made out, s. 25G will be vindicated and not violated, varying the 
ordinary rule of 'last come first go.' There is none made out here, nor even 
a1leged, except the only plea that t'he retrenchment was done in compliance 
( 
i. 
I 
I , 
.. 
I 't 
T 
""' 
J 
WORKMEN SUDDER WORKSHOP v. MANAGEMENT (Krishna Iyer, J.)957 
with s. 25G grade-wise. Absence of mala fides by itself is no absolution from 
A 
the rule in s.25G. Affirmatively, some valid and justifiable grounds must be 
proved by the Management to be exonerated from the 'last come first gc>' prin· 
ciple. The aboye rule can be applied category wise. That is to say tbose 
who fell in the same category shall suffer retrenchment only in accordance with 
!be principle of last come first go. [969 E, H, 970 A, B, 0-FJ 
Ml s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds 
Exchange Ltd., 
Delhi v. Their 
Workmen, 
[1966] Suppl. S.C.R. 74, followed. 
3. Grading for purposes of scales of pay and like considerations will no! 
create new categorisation. ..ft is a· confusion or unwarranted circumvention to 
contend that within the seme category if grades for scales of pay, based on 
length of service etc., are evolved, that process amounts to creation of seporate 
categories. In the instant case, the senioriiy List is the same which is a tell· 
ing circumstance to show that they fell in the same category. 
[971 C-E] 
4. Supreme eoUrt cannot sympathise with a party who gambles in 
litigation to put off the evil day and when that day arrives prays to be 
saved from his own gamble. The Award had given convincing reasons for 
reinstatement and even reduced the back wages to half. Still, the workmen 
were dragged to the High Court and, worse, when worsted there, were driven 
from Assam to Delhi to defend their pittance. The logistics of litigation for 

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