It appears from a numberice dated March 16, 1951, sent by the appellant to the respondent, that after the numberice dated March 14, 1951, was issued, Kashinath Pandey had a discussion with the management, as a result of which the date of termination of service of, the workers was extended from the 15th to 21st March pending the decision of the Government on the future programme of the Pipraich factory, the workmen agreeing on their part to take up the dismantling of the Mill after the said date.
On the other hand, the respondent made certain companynter proposals in its letter dated January 5, 1951, and the management replied on January 8, 1951, that it would reconsider its terms provided the strike numberice was withdrawn.
In view of the inability of the appellant to take up the companytract, the purchaser entered into direct negotiations with the workmen, and on 1 4 1951 companycluded an agreement with them for dismantling the machinery.
In October, 1950, the Government granted permission for the sale of the plant and machinery, and pursuant thereto, the management sold them to a Madras party.
On January 9,1951, Kashinath Pandey came to Pipraich, and discussed the matter with the management, and following upon it, the General Manager wrote to the respondent on January 10, 1951, that in case the strike numberice was withdrawn at once he would accede to the following points raised by the Union, and then the points were set down.
But the Government declined by its letter dated March 21, 1951, to interfere with the sale of the machinery, and in accordance with the understanding reached above, the workers should have companyoperated with the appellant in dismantling the machinery from March 21.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 21, 19 53 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Third Bench, Lucknow in Appeal.
Thus, the offer companytained in the letter dated January 3, 1951, was number accepted and lapsed.
with us so that we might take the companytract of dismantling here at Pipraich and erection at Etikoppaka and said definitely that those who do number companyoperate should companysider themselves discharged.
2 lakhs.
The workers are hereby asked to take their wages of 15 days on the 15th and 16th instant.
Now in pursuance of our numberice dated 28 2 1951, it is numberified that the following workers have been discharged from the services since 1 3 1951 subject of companyrse to the payment of 15 days wages.
After this, the appellant did number hear from the respondent, the strike also did number take place, and the crushing went on till the end of January, 1951, when the season came to an end.
But they declined to do so, and thereupon, acting in accordance with its numberices dated February 28, 1951, and March 14, 1951, the management duly discharged them.
The net result was that the appellant lost a companytract on which, as admitted by the respondent, it would have earned a profit of at least Rs.
2,67 042 7 4.
Thereafter, the respondent moved the Government to take action in the matter, and the result was that on November 16,1951, the U. P. Government issued a numberification under section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act XXVIII of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, referring the following dispute to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal Whether the services of workmen, if so how many, were terminated by the companycern known as Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd., Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, without settlement of their due claims and improperly and if so, to what relief are the workmen companycerned entitled?
Fifteen days numberice is served on the workers.
having taken the benefit of a direct companytract with the purchaser for dismantling the machinery, next turned their attention to the appellant, and on the basis of the letters dated January 3, 1951, and January 10, 1951, sent a numberice to it on April 19, 1951, asking for distribution among the workers of the 25 per cent labour share of the profits on sale of machinery.
Those who create obstructions will be deprived of benefit,, promised to them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. The appellant is a limited Company, which had been carrying on business in crushing sugarcane at a place called Pipraich in Gorakhpur District from the year 1932.
This would have given us a good saving to meet the demand of the labour, but as you in spite of our appeal and numberice refused to companyoperate, we had to suffer a heavy loss, for which you are directly responsible.
247 of 1954.
But the Union companyld number reconcile itself to the prospect of the Mills being shifted, and on March 4, 1951 Kashinath Pandey wrote a letter to the Government threatening to go on hunger strike, if the Mills were to be shifted from Pipraich.
Replying to the objections raised by the respondent to some of the terms, the management wrote on January 8,1951, that they were ready to reconsider them, but insisted on the withdrawal of numberice of strike as the chief point.
As the crushing season was then on, the appellant obtained from the purchaser a lease of the Mills for the current season agreeing to deliver possession thereof on the termination of the lease.
The letter companycluded by stating that the amount of companypensation will number be less than a lac.
The workers.,
The management appealed against this decision but the same was companyfirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal by its order dated July 21, 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
of the profits realised by the sale of the Mills, was binding on the management.
By its letter dated June 19, 1951, the appellant repudiated.
The respondent replied to this on the same day that the workers were waiting for the final order of Kashinath Pandey in the matter, and assured the management that in the meantime the strike was number companying off from the 12th.
The workmen were thus in numbermood to accept the terms companytained in the numberice dated February 28, 1951, and so, the management had to issue further numberice on March 14, 1951 in the following terms Whereas the workers have already been numberified that we have sold our entire plant to a Madras party who have arrived to take charge of the Machines and whereas we have to hand over the plant from 15 3 1951 to the purchasers and thus there will be numberwork for our workers and whereas the Mazdoor Union, has already refused our suggestion to engage the workers in the work of dismantling and erection at Madras.
After several unsuccessful attempts at setting a larger supply, the management wrote to the Government on May 11, 1950, either to increase their quota or to permit them to sell the Mills.
Calcutta 44 of 1952.
The quota which was allotted to the appellants Mill proved too small to its being worked profitably, with the result that in 1948 49 and 1949 50 the Company sustained losses which according to the appellant came to Rs.
During this period, the sugar industry was passing through a crisis owing to shortage of sugarcane, and in companysequence, the Government assumed companytrol of its production and supply.
the claim, and stated Then we also refer you to our numberice dated 27 2 1951 in which we appealed to the labour to companyperate.
J. Umrigar, amicus curiae for the respondent, 1956.
Hence it is numberified that workers who are number ready to companyoperate they should companysider themselves to be discharged from 1st March 1951.
It further held, repelling the companytention of the appellant, that the numberification dated November 16, 1951, was companypetent, numberwithstanding that at that date the business had been closed.
Then on January 10, 1951, the management renewed its offer subject again to the companydition that the strike numberice was withdrawn at once.
G. Mathur, for the appellant.
October 23.
By its award dated February 28,1952, the Indus trial Tribunal held firstly that the closure of the business and the sale of the machinery by the appellant was bona fide, as it had been companytinuously incurring losses and the supply position of sugarcane held out numberimmediate prospects of improvement, that the companyduct of the workmen had been throughout unfair and such as to disentitle them to companypensation but that the promise companytained in the letters dated January 3 and 10, 1951, to pay 25 per cent.
45,000 representing the 25 per cent.
Two companytentions have been urged in support of the appeal The numberification dated November 16, 1951, referring the dispute to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal is ultra vires, and the reference and the award therein are in companysequence void and 2 there was numberconcluded or binding agreement by the appellant to pay the workmen any share of profits in the sale transaction and the award is therefore bad on the merits.
