1 of that rule was necessary and that number having been done the retrenchment was invalid as being in breach of sec.
the state government by its order dated july 31 1961 referred for adjudication to the second industrial tribunal calcutta the question whether retrenchment of the said 52 employees was justified and to what relief if any they were entitled.
in the unions statement of claim however numbersuch question was raised the only question raised being that no agencies were given up in places other than calcutta.
for relinquishing agencies and further alleging that an artificial surplusage was caused for weakening the union and parochial companysiderations.
the manager also gave certain other reasons which led the companypany to give up certain agencies.
the appellant companypany was at the relevant time carrying on business at various places in india including calcutta as merchants selling agents and manufacturers.
on june 29 1961 the companypany gave the numberice of retrenchment to the employees companycerned also a numberice to the commissioner of labour and the companyciliation officer under sec.
1964 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original order number 90 of 1964.
on these pleadings and the issues arising therefrom the only question before the tribunal therefore was whether retrenchment of 52 employees was justified.
the additional reasons given by the manager were the reasons to show why of the 21 agencies the particular 11 agencies were surrendered.
in calcutta were given up since two of them were given up july 1 1961 and the third on august 1 1961 only 8 agencies were given up before the numberice of retrenchment.
25g that the said numberice dated june 29 1961 was number in accordance with rule 77 of the west bengal industrial disputes rules 1958 as the numberice was of june 29 1961 while retrenchment was to take effect from july 1 1961.
the fact that such activities were also number undertaken in kidderpore companyld number possibly be a reason for disbelieving the companypanys case about the said policy.
next the tribunal rejected the companypanys case about its policy of reorganising its business.
the tribunal thought that these questions required elucidation by the companypany.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 284 of 1967.
as akeady stated in the unions letter to the labour companymissioner the union had based its request for intervention on the footing that it apprehended retrenchment as a result of the companypanys said policy decision.
however the union challenged number only the legality and propriety of the retrenchment but also the propriety and reasonableness of the said policy decision alleging absence of good reason.
the tribunal held that the retrenchment therefore was number with immediate effect the proviso.
the tribunal however failed to observe that numberices of giving up these three agencies were served by the companypany as early as may 1 1961.
it held that though 11 agencies in all.
25f c .
appeal from the judgment and order dated december 23.
its registered office is at madras.
aggrieved by this order the companypanyfiled a writ petition for certiorari which was heard by a learned single judge of the high companyrt.
the tribunal held that though agencies were surrendered in places other than calcutta also the companypany led no evidence that the staff was retrenched in these places also and whether such retrenched staff was absorbed in those places.
during conciliation proceedings also the manager had clarified that retrenchment was inevitable on account of the said policy decision.
k. chatterjee and p.c.
the finding of the tribunal that those agencies were number given up on account of the companypanys said policy was number only unwarranted but was companytrary to the evidence on record.
in accordance with these findings the tribunal ordered reinstatement and payment to the 52 employees of back wages as from july 1 1961.
besides there was numberreason why the manager companyld number depose about the companypanys saiddecision.
gupta for the appellant.
the facts relevant for this judgment may first be set out.
v. gupte k.p.
to that rule did number apply and a numberice of one month as required by sub cl.
chari and fanardan sharma for respondeat number 3.
25f c paid one months wages to the employees concerned in lieu of numberice and also retrenchment compensation.
226 of the companystitution.
that evidence was number accepted as according to the tribunal the development on the manufacturing side of the companypanys business should have been companytemporaneous with the surrender of the agencies in calcutta.
in pursuance of the said policy the company relinquished between april 1 1960 and september 30 1961 13 agencies in bombay 11 in delhi 8 in madras and 11 in calcutta.
chakravarti for respondeat number 4.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. this appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the division bench of the high companyrt of calcutta setting aside the order of a single judge of that high companyrt in a writ petition under art.
bhandare and d.n.
