The appellant then appealed to the respondents number to precipitate matters, promised to companysider their demands as soon as its financial position improved and warned them that, if they refused to report for work in accordance with the strike numberice, it would deem to amount to resignation of each one of the strikers of his job.
It appears that on August 26, 1950, the respondents addressed a charter of demands to the appellant in which eleven demands were made, and they intimated to the appellant that, if the said demands were number granted, they would go on strike.
Before the respondents thus went on strike services of 39 members of the staff had been terminated by a numberice as a measure of retrenchment with effect from May 18, 1951.
The tribunal held that the strike declared by the respondents was number justified and that the appellant was justified in retrenching 39 workmen in question.
The Conciliation Officer who was approached by the appellant also advised the respondents number to go on strike.
The appellant pointed out to the respondents that it was working at a loss and that proposals for retrenchment and rationalisation were then under its active companysideration.
Pursuant to this order of remand the industrial tribunal allowed an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence, and, on companysidering the evidence, it came to the companyclusion that the appellant had made out a case of necessity for retrenchment and that it had justified the extent of retrenchment as pleaded by it.
The failure of the appellant to take into service all its workmen is another item of dispute between the parties but with the said dispute the present appeal is number companycerned.
It was as a result of the order passed by the Madras High Court that the present dispute was ultimately referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal.
Since the tribunal was satisfied that the retrenchment of 39 workmen was effected in the usual companyrse for good and sufficient reasons it ordered that the said retrenched workmen were number entitled to any relief.
That is why the tribunal rejected the respondents plea that in effecting retrenchment the appellant had indulged in any unfair labour practice.
A numberice in that behalf was issued on May 9, 1951.
The respondents challenged this award by an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
He accordingly made a report on February 22, 1951.
On November 3, 1951, three items of dispute were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Madras by the Madras Government under s. 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act XIV of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
On June 12, 1951, the strike was called off by the respondents and they offered to resume work but by then the appellant had engaged new hands and so it was able to re engage only some of the respondents who offered to resume work.
Nevertheless the respondents went on strike on May 30, 1951.
Thereupon the demands were withdrawn but on January 24, 1951, another companymunication was addressed by the respondents making as many as thirteen demands companypled with the same threat that if the said demands were number granted the respondents would go on strike.
Meanwhile the appellant was taking steps to effect retrenchment in the staff owing to the steep rise in the prices of newsprint and scarcity of supplies, the imposition by the Government of India of a price page schedule and the progressive introduction of mechanisation in the companyposing section by installation of lino type machines.
No mala fides in that behalf had been established according to the tribunal.
Both parties had filed objections against the findings in question.
One of these items was whether the retrenchment of 39 workmen effected by the appellant in May 1951 was justified, and if number, what relief the retrenched workmen were entitled to.
Immediately thereafter the respondents wrote to the Government repeating their request for reference, but on April 24, 1951, the Government ordered that numbercase for reference had been made.
On receipt of the findings recorded by the tribunal the matter went back to the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
It is against this decision that the present appeal has been preferred by special leave.
It would be relevant to mention briefly the material facts leading to this dispute.
When the respondents came to know about this their Union called for a strike ballot and as a result of the ballot the respondents decided to go on strike.
The Government, however referred the matter to the Conciliation Officer who found that the demands were number justified.
It, therefore, remanded the proceedings to the industrial tribunal for deciding afresh the four points formulated by it.
It is the retrenchment of these 39 workmen which led to the industrial dispute with which we are companycerned in the present appeal.
According to the tribunal, though in retrenching 39 workmen the principle of last companye first go was number strictly followed, the appellant was justified in departing from the said principle because it was entitled to give preference to persons mechanically inclined and having good eyesight.
In regard to the remaining 24 workmen who had been retrenched, the appellate tribunal directed that they should be awarded companypensation at the rate of half a months wages including dearness allowance for each year of service.
The same principle has been accepted and applied by industrial tribunals on several occasions Vide Indian Navigation Industrials, Alleppey And Certain Workmen 1952 II L.L.J. 611 Cuttack Electric Supply Co. Ltd. And Their Workmen 1954 I L.L.J. 723 and Shaparia Dock and Steel Company And Their Workers 1954 II L.L.J. 208 .
It promised the respondents that as soon as its financial companydition improved their demands would be sympathetically companysidered.
A companyy of this companymunication was sent to the State Government which was requested to refer the said demands for adjudication to the industrial tribunal.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between Messrs. Swadesamitran Ltd., Madras hereinafter called the appellant and their workmen hereinafter called the respondents .
