4 to 14 be paid, in addition to the retrenchment companypensation received by them 50 per cent of the wages as companypensation for the period they remained in unemployment up till the date when the award became enforceable, but they may number be reinstated, and that peons Tara Shanker and Om Prakash be reinstated with full wages and peons Nos.
W 1 be paid in addition to the retrenchment companypensation, 50 per cent of the wages they would have been entitled to.
The appellant further submitted that retrenchment of the workmen was number liable to be challenged, because some junior members of the staff were retained, since the Company had recorded in the resolution its reasons for departing from the rule first companye, last go, and had adhered to the principles companytained in s. 25F of the Industrial, Disputes Act as far as possible.
The appellant denied that in retrenching the workmen the management had acted mala fide, or that retrenchment amounted to an unfair labour practice.
The Labour Court accepted the companytention of the workmen and held that departure from a principle which was part of the law relating to industrial employment rendered the retrenchment of all workmen unjustified and improper and on that account retrenchment of clerks and peons who were affected by the departure from the rule was illegal and mala fide.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated, the September 10, 1965 of the Labour Court, Delhi, in I.D. No.
Madan Mohan, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant is engaged in carrying on the business of regulating forward trade in groundnut oil and mustard seed, and is recognised as an Exchange under the provisions of the Forward Contract Act, 1952.
18 to 23 in Ext.
1 to 14 and 16 to 23 in Ext.
W 1 the List of Seniority were so affected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Setavad, B. P. Maheshwari and M. S. Narasimhan, for the appellant.,
the appellant Exchange.
In the view of the Labour Court, workmen Nos.
The workmen pleaded that retrenchment on the ground of the ban imposed on forward trading in groundnut oil and mustard seed was mala fide and that in retaining seven workmen the appellant did number follow, without any adequate ground, the first companye last go rule, and on that account all the workmen were entitled to be reinstated with full wages from the date of determination of employment and with companytinuity of service.
Conciliation proceedings to solve the dispute having failed, the Delhi Administration referred to the Labour Court the dispute whether retrenchment of the workmen by the appellant was unjustified and illegal.
On June 1, 1964 the Government of India issued an order prohibiting trading in diverse companymodities including groundnut oil and mustard seed, and in companysequence thereof numberfurther business companyld, be carried on through.
131 of 1966.
The workmen then raised an industrial dispute.
On July 17, 1965 the appellant served numberices of retrenchment upon 30 out of its 37 employees and paid them salary for the period of numberice and retrenchment companypensation under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947.
23 of 1965.
At the hearing of the reference before the Labour Court, Delhi, companynsel for the workmen companyceded that the appellant was justified in retrenching its employees and that the number of employees required to carry on the work after the imposition of a ban against the business of the appellant companyld number exceed the number retained by the appellant.
With special leave, the Company has appealed to this Court.
