The Vendors Manager had also been instructed to deliver the Cash Balance on the same day.
They, therefore, wanted the advice of the Vendee immediately as to whether the Vendee desired that the proposed lay off should apply to Subong Tea Estate which was being sold to the Vendee.
The approval of the Reserve Bank was, however, number received till the 15th July, 1959.
The appellants, however, companytended that at the relevant date when the 8 workmen were retrenched, respondent No.
1,70,000 to companyer the items shown in the accompanying statement.
It was further their case that the impugned retrenchment is invalid and illegal inasmuch as it is number justified under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 No.
This agreement was subject to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India.
Appeal by special leave from the award date July 5, 1961 of the Industrial Tribunal Assam Reference No.
The letter further expressed the hope that the Vendor expected to receive a cheque for a total sum of Rs.
1 may companysider reasonable with due regard to companypensation already paid to them.
In pursuance of this letter, Mr. Hammond, the Acting Manager of the Vendor Co., handed over possession to the Manager of the Vendee on the 17 February, 1959.
Before dealing with the points of law raised in the present appeal by Mr. Sen Gupta on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to state the material facts in some detail.
The first issue was whether the impugned retrenchment of the 8 workmen was justified the second was whether respondent No.
Pending the execution of the companyveyance, on the 17th February, 1959, the Vendee was put in possession of the tea garden.
These facts are number in dispute.
They were also informed that retrenchment companypensation under s. 25F of the Act as well as pro rata dues on account of leave wages earned on 31st August, 1959 would be paid to them and their claims for Provident Fund dues would likewise be settled.
On the 13th February 1959, Macneill Barry Ltd. wrote to the Vendee that they had received a cheque for Rs.
That is how the dispute in regard to the impugned retrenchment came to be referred by the Governor of Assam for industrial adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, under s. 10 1 d of the Act.
By this sale deed it was agreed that once the companyveyance was companypleted, the transfer was deemed to have taken effect from the 1st January, 1959, and the purchaser had companyenanted by this sale deed that he would be under obligation to every employee or labourer of the tea estate in question except the European management and any other member of the Companys executive staff either to companytinue his services on the same terms and companyditions of service as were applicable to him before the sale of the said tea estate, or to pay him companypensation Prescribed by law, subject to the other companyditions specified in the document.
This retrenchment led to a threat of strike, and so, Macneill Barry Ltd. wrote to the Vendee that for the strike which was the result of retrenchment, the Vendor would number be responsible.
Four issues were referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication.
And on the 21 st February, 1959, Mr. Hammond reported to the Labour Officer that the new owners had decided number to lay off the workmen of the said garden.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
39 59.
The case made by the Union and the retrenched workmen in substance, was that on the 17th February, 1959, the tea garden had been delivered over to the Vendee and that there after the Vendor had numberright, title or companynection with the said garden and as such, it ceased to be the employer of the employees working in the garden.
The said employees were told that they would be paid the salary for the month of September, but would number be required to work.
The agreement of transfer between respondent No.
This position was disputed by the Vendee and that has ultimately led to the present dispute.
1 has paid adequate retrenchment companypensation to them.
On the occasion of the retrenchment of the 8 employees in question, respondent No.
Amongst these 8 workmen, one was a Doctor engaged by the Vendor Co. in its Dispensary, two were Pharmacists in the said Dispensary and the remaining five were members of the clerical staff.
it is this award which is challenged before us by the appellants in the present appeal which has been brought to this Court by special leave.
1 and respondent No.
On the Ist September, 1959, the Union representing the said employees, protested against the retrenchment in question.
Sankar Bannerjee, S.N. Mukherjee and B.N Ghose, for respondent number 1.
2 was their employer, and so, respondent No.
This companymunication was addressed by the Controller of Licensing to the Vendee on the 4th May, 1959.
Along with this letter, a provisional state ment of account companyering the running expenses and 50 per cent of the value of the Stores, was sent to the Vendee.
On the 28th December, 1959, the sale deed was eventually executed.
In accordance with this letter, numberices were served by Mr. Hammond on the 8 workmen companycerned on the 31st August, 1959, and as we have already indicated, these workmen were paid their retrenchment companypensation and their services were terminated.
December 2, 1963.
The said employees further companyplained that they were companypelled to take numberices of retrenchment and receive the amount of companypensation, and that the acceptance of the said amount by them was without prejudice to their claim for companytinuity of service and to their right to challenge the validity of their retrenchment.
On the 31st August, 1959, Mr. Hammond, the Manager of the Vender Co., served numberices on the 8 employees in question intimating to them that their services would be terminated with effect from the 1st October, 1959.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The industrial dispute which has given rise to this appeal arose between the appellants, the workmen of Subong Tea Estate, and the management of Subong Tea Estate represented by respondents 1 2.
132 of 1963.
Respondent No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, B.P. Maheshwari an P.K. Ghose, for respondent number2.
In pursuance of these numberices, the eight employees were paid retrenchment companypensation due to them on the 31st August, 1959.
L. Sen, and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants.
1, M s. Macneill Barry Ltd., who managed the Subong Tea Estate, has transferred the said estate to respondent No.
Meanwhile, on the 9th February, 1959, M s. Macneill Barry Ltd. wrote to the Vendee that they proposed to lay off all workers and clerical staff members, other than those required for essential works for a period of 45 days from the 18th February, 1959 and this decision had been taken by them as an economy measure in respect of all the tea gardens under their management.
The letter further added that after the said cheque was received, possession would be delivered over to the Manager of the Vendee.
14 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act , and has number been carried out according to the principles prescribed by s. 25G of the said Act.
2, M s. Gungaram Tarachand otherwise known as Hindusthan Tea Company.
The said approval was accorded on the 15th July, 1959, and the companyveyance was actually executed on the 28th December, 1959.
1 had numberauthority to pass the orders of retrenchment.
1,20,000 and thereafter had instructed their Manager telegraphically to deliver possession of the garden to Mr. Gopiram Agarwalla, the Vendees Manager on the 16th February.
