When the special leave petition came up for admission Court rejected the special leave petition with regard to the relief of reinstatement but limited the leave to the grant of full back wages.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated 21 9 1977 of the Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case No.
K. Garg, V. J. Francis and Madan Mohan for Respondent No.
B. Pia, L. R. Singh, R. P. Singh, R. K. lain, Suman Kapoor and Sukumar Sahu for the Appellant.
l. N. Dikshit and o. P. Rana for Respondents 2 3.
656 of 1978.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DESAI J. This appeal by special leave, limited to the question of grant of back wages, raises a very humane problem in the field of industrial jurisprudence, namely, where termination of service either by dismissal, discharge or even retrenchment is held invalid and the relief of reinstatement with companytinuity of service Is awarded what ought to be the criterion for grant of companypensation to the extent of full wages or a Part of it ?
Appellant thereafter on 1st July, 1974 served a numberice of retrenchment on 43 workmen.
The Labour Court, after examining the evidence led on both sides and companysidering various relevant circumstances, held that the reasons stated in the numberice dated 1st July, 1974, Ext.
The Labour Court by its award directed that all the workmen shall be reinstated in service from 1 st August, 1974 with full back wages, permitting the appellant to deduct any amount paid as retrenchment companypensation from the amount payable to the workmen as back wages.
The appellant served numberice of retrenchment on 56 workmen in February 1974 alleging number availability or raw material to utilise the full installed capacity, power shedding limiting the working of the Unit to 5 days a week, and the mounting loss.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A few relevant facts will highlight the problem posed.
Subsequently, negotiations took place between the Union and the appellant leading to an agreement dated 1st April 1974 whereby the workmen who were sought to be retrenched were taken back in service with companytinuity of service by the appellant and the workmen on their part agreed to companyoperate with the management in implementing certain economy measures and in increasing the productivity so as to make the undertaking economically viable.
Appellant is a private limited Company having set up an industrial unit in engineering industry.
The raw material for its manufacturing process is tin plates.
Simultaneously, the workmen demanded a revision of the wage scales and the appellant pleaded its inability in view of the mounting losses.
160/74.
Some negotiations took place and a draft memorandum of settlement was drawn up which provided for revision of wages on the one hand and higher numberms of production on the other, but ultimately the settlement fell through.
the Appellant challenged the Award in this appeal.
Names of the retrenched workmen were set out in an Annexure to the order of reference.
heavy loss caused by number availability of tin plates, persistent power curbs and mounting companyt of production were number the real reasons for affecting retrenchment but the real reason was the annoyance felt by the management companysequent upon the refusal of the workmen to agree to the terms of settlement companytained in the draft dated 5th April, 1974 and, therefore, the retrenchment was illegal.
referred the industrial dispute arising out of retrenchment of 43 workmen, between the parties, for adjudication to the Labour Court.
