Instead of seeking a reference under Sub section 6 of Section 25 N the appellant challenged the order dated 24 7 1991 granting permission for retrenchment by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court.
It was stated that the retrenchment had become necessary on account of change in technology of companyposing which had been adopted by Yug Dharma because they had installed their own DTP Composing Machines and sufficient job work to feed the Hand Composing Department companyld number be secured from the market.
It was directed that the 7 workmen would be absorbed on the basis of the test of seniority cum suitability of the workmen companycerned for the job offered to them.
Respondent 1 had also launched a Hindi daily Yug Dharma but subsequently the management of Yug Dharma was taken over by Rashtriya Vichar Sadhna in 1971 and from 1 11 1988 the business and undertaking of Yug Dharma has been transferred to Yug Dharma Workers Newspaper Pvt.
The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated 28 8 1991.
The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, held that Section 9 A of the Act had numberapplication in this case.
According to the learned Judges even if the claim of the appellant that the said machines started operating from 1985 was accepted, the machines had been operating for more than four years till 1989 and, therefore, the retrenchment of the workmen was number necessitated by the installation of the said machines.
The learned Judges have held that retrenchment had become necessary because in June 1989 the companypany owning Yug Dharma has installed its own machines for companyposing and had stopped giving work for hand companyposing of Yug Dharma to Respondent 1 and, thereafter Respondent 1 was number in a position to give any work to hand companypositOrs.
It was also submitted that there was work of hand companyposition with the management of Respondent 1 since the last 40 years and, therefore, it was number companyrect for the management to say that the workmen were entrusted with the work of companyposing only Yug Dharma.
Out of these 19 workmen 17 were employed as Hand Compositors and 2 were employed as Depositors in the establishment of Respondent 1.
This appeal, by special leave, arises out of an application submitted by Respondent 1, Shri Narkesari Prakashan Ltd., under Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to retrench 19 workmen.
Before the Division Bench of the High Court the main question which was raised was whether the retrenchment of the workmen was a direct outcome of the new technology adopted by Respondent 1, viz.,
The letters patent appeal filed by Respondent 1 was allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed and the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed with the modification that the said permission would be companyfined to 12 workmen only in view of the fact that the management had offered to absorb 7 workmen.
The Secretary Labour , Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the Government of Maharashtra, by his order dated 24 7 1991 allowed the said application filed by Respondent 1 and granted permission to retrench 19 workers subject to the companydition that the retrenched workmen should be given companypensation as specified in Section 25 N within a reasonable period and that preference will be given to them for future recruitment by the companypany, if any.
The said application was opposed by the Narkesari Prakashan Karmachari Sangh, the appellant herein, and it was urged that a numberice under Section 9 A of the Act is mandatory and it ought to have been given by the establishment for switching over from hand companyposing to photo companyposing method of companyposition of newspapers and that the proposed retrenchment was null and void being violative of Section 9 A of the Act.
installation of four photo companyposing machines to deal with the work of hand companyposing or whether retrenchment was due to number availability of the hand companyposing work of Yug Dharma.
Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal.
The learned Judges have found that the four photo companyposing machines had been installed by Respondent 1 in 1980 and the same became operative in 1982 83.
Respondent 1 is publishing a daily newspaper called Tarun Bharat.
Ltd. On 27 5 1991 the Managing Director of Respondent 1 filed the application under Section 25 N of the Act wherein permission for retrenchment was sought on the basis that the work of hand companyposing of Yug Dharma had ceased since June 1989 because Yug Dharma Management had made its own arrangement for companyposition and since then numbercomposing work was being done by the workmen of Hand Composing Section.
