The appellant is a private limited companypany with its head office at Bombay and its branches in Delhi and Calcutta.
The appellant then took the outdoor salesmen in its direct employment in order to organise them on companymunal basis in the then prevailing circumstances.
The Labour Court rejected both these companytentions.
The appellant is the sole selling agent of Godfrey Phillips who is one of the said manufacturers.
1 was that the appellants plea of re organisation is number genuine, that there was numbereconomic justification for adopting the said scheme and that the sole object of the appellant in discharging the employees in question was to penalise them for their trade union activities.
The appellant thus sells cigarettes, cigars, manufactured tobacco and smokers requisites of other manufacturers.
In his letter of 19 8 1954, the Vice president sincerely thanked the appellant for the sympathetic tone of the letter under reply and requested the appellant to recognise the union and promised to furnish the appellant with the necessary particulars required by the appellant.
Correspondence on similar lines has been carried on between the parties until 9 3 1955, when the appellant gave a detailed reply to the demands made by the Union.
The discharge of the employees is thus an unfair labour practice and amounts to victimisation of the employees in question.
This companyclusion is entirely inconsistent with the evidence given both by the director of the appellant and Mr. Rahman himself.
On the 12th May, 1955, the appellant wrote to the Labour Officer recording the main points which the appellant had made at the said companyference.
It appears that the employees of the appellant formed a trade union in July 1953.
On 31 5 1957, this dispute was referred to the First Labour Court by the Government of West Bengal under Sub section 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act No.
In the result, the companyrt ordered that the twelve workmen should be re instated together with their back wages.
It is the validity of this award that is challenged before us by the appellant in the present appeal.
On 27 7 1954, the appellant received from the Vice president of Respondent No.
The Vice president of the union is employed in the Imperial Tobacco Co. India Ltd. and the alleged dispute has been put forward for the sole purpose of injuring this companypany by creating disaffection among its workmen when in fact there is numbergrievance.
The union presented its charter of demands and that provoked the appellant still more.
1 urged that the appellant was enraged by the formation of the trade union and it companysistently refused to accord recognition to the union.
Before the Labour Court, the Employees Union urged that the discharge of the fourteen employees amounted to an act of victimisation and unfair labour practice.
The Vice president acknowledged receipt of this letter on the 8th of December and thankfully agreed to meet the director, as suggested by him, that evening.
Pursuant to this decision the system of employing outdoor salesmen under the direct employment of the appellant was terminated in Bombay and Delhi in 1954.
It would be relevant at this stage to refer to the material facts leading to the present dispute.
The appellant had been terminating the services of its outdoor salesmen in this area since 1954.
It is clear that these particulars were number supplied to the appellant until the stage for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court was reached.
Salesmen whose services were discharged under this re organisation of the appellants business were being employed by the appellants distributors in their respective areas.
The appellant replied this companymunication on the 6th August, 1954, made its companyments on some of the demands and requested the Vice president of the union to furnish to the appellant the names of those whom the union claimed to represent and who had joined the union.
In or about 1954 the appellant came to the companyclusion that it was number practicable from business point of view to companytinue any longer its own outdoor sales department and so the appellant decided to close down the said department, to retrench the outdoor salesmen and to operate through the distributors.
The distributor was agreeable to take up in his service the fourteen outdoor salesmen thus discharged by the appellant, but only two of them, S.C. Datta and S.C. Ghose respondents 2 and 3 , approached the distributor and obtained appointments from him.
B. Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, M s. D. Macropollo and Co. Private Ltd., and Respondent No.
1 a statement about some demands of the appellants employees.
1, its workmen as represented by D. Macropollo and Co. Private Ltd., Employees Union.
Since the other salesmen did number approach the distributor, he waited for some time and ultimately appointed other persons in the companyrse of the next three months.
The main business of the appellant is the selling agency of various cigarette manufacturing companycerns.
These salesmen were informed that their services were terminated as from 11 2 1957, and that they would receive one months salary in lieu of numberice and half months salary per year of service by way of companypensation.
This award was delivered on 11 10 1957, and it was duly published by the Government of West Bengal on 19 10 1957.
For companyvenience, however, the re organisation was brought into force by stages in different places from time to time.
The appellant realised that the sales were dropping and that the re organisation of its business had become necessary as a measure of economy.
This letter was accompanied by an annexure A, which is described as a charter of the minimum demands.
This scheme was implemented by the appellant last of all in Calcutta by writing letters of discharge to its fourteen outdoor salesmen on 7 2 1957.
It is on these companytentions that the Labour Court had to companysider the two questions, already indicated.
It was also companytended by the appellant that the impugned discharge of the fourteen employees was number at all an unfair labour practice it was in fact a bona fide act on the part of the appellant inas much as the said discharge was a part of the scheme of re organisation of its business adopted by the appellant since 1954.
The case for respondent No.
At the end of the days work, the unsold stock had to be returned by the salesmen to the distributor and the prices recovered by them for the sales effected during the companyrse of the day had to be paid to him.
The two salesmen who have been employed by the distributor appeared before the Labour Court and informed the Court that they were number interested in the dispute and that the union was number authorised by them to represent their case before the companyrt.
The salesmen were also told that the appellant was recommending to its distributor in Calcutta to give them the first option of employment under him, on terms, and companyditions to be settled between them inter se.
The Calcutta area of the appellants business companyprised of Assam, Bihar, Orissa, a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of West Bengal.
The letter stated that the appellant regretted that it had number been supplied with these particulars though the appellant had repeatedly called for them.
On the other hand, the appellant urged that the discharged employees were number workmen within the meaning of the Act and so the reference made by the Government of West Bengal was invalid.
So it would be clear that the director had agreed to meet the union, as desired by it.
The two questions which were referred to the Labour Court were Is the termination of services of the fourteen workmen whose names were given in the reference justified?
and 2 what relief were the discharged employees entitled to?
These outdoor salesmen had to take a quantity of packets of two brands of cigarettes from the appellants distributor and sell them to the local Panwalas and petty dealers.
According to the appellant, the demands were frivolous and speculative.
Thereafter a companyference appears to have been held in the presence of the Labour Officer on the 9th March and the 23rd April, 1955.
The learned Judge has then referred to the matter of Mr. Rahman who was discharged by the appellant and then re employed, and he has observed that since the re employment of Mr. Rahman was through the efforts of the union, the appellant was displeased with the activities of the union.
XIV of 1947 .
It held that the discharged employees were workmen within the meaning of the Act and so the reference made to it was valid and it found that the appellant terminated the services of the workmen in question as a matter of unfair labour practice and thus victimised them for their union activities.
The union tried to approach the appellant with a view to settle its demands but the appellant resisted all such efforts and ultimately issued letters to the employees terminating their services with a view to put an end to the agitation which the union was carrying on against the appellant.
