subsequently the Government of Haryana by its order dated 23rd November, 1972 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication Whether the retrenchment of Sarvashri Mohammed Yamin and Mohammad Yasin was justified and in order ?
On 13th July 1971 the appellant purported to serve a numberice on respondents 3 and 4 and one Mr. Ramni intimating to them that the management has decided to close the painting section effective 13th July 1971 due to unavoidable circumstances and hence the services of the three workmen would numberlonger be required and, therefore, they are retrenched.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 1 10 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
In respect of demand No.
If number, to what relief they are entitled ?
To proceed further with the narrative.
81/72 and proceeded to adjudicate upon the dispute.
1 of the preliminary objection in the written statement ?
as the companydition precedent was number companyplied with, the retrenchment was invalid.
If number, to what relief they are entitled?
Three issues were raised before the Tribunal and it is necessary to set down the three issues here in order to point out that one of the companytentions raised at the hearing of this appeal was never put forth before the Tribunal.
This refusal to refer the demand companycerning respondents 3 and 4 has been the subject matter of a very serious submission on behalf of the Company that the reference subsequently made by the Government was invalid.
On 19th February 1972 as per Annexure P 2, the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Labour and Employment Department, intimated to the President of the Union that from amongst the demands companytained in Annexure P l, Demands 2 to 9 have been referred to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
The appellant moved the High Court of Punjab Haryana for a writ of certiorari but the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
It has set up two factories, one at Bombay and the other at Ballabhgarh.
l relating to the reinstatement of the three workmen in the painting section, the reference was refused on the ground that there was numberwork for painting in the factory where these two workmen were working.
Subsequently the appropriate Government by its order No.
The appellant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Fire Fighters Foam Compound.
Since 13th July 1971 respondents 3 and 4 have been denied employment by the appellant.
Whether the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workmen is number in order ?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3, the Tribunal held that respondents 3 and 4 were retrenched and the case would squarely fall under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act and as the appellant employer has number companyplied with the pre condition laid down in s. 25F a and b of the Act to wit, serving of one months numberice or wages in lieu of such numberice and payment of retrenchment companypensation, the retrenchment was invalid.
634 or 1975.
The submission is that the Union espoused the cause of the aforementioned two workmen respondents 3 and 4 companyplaining that the termination of their services is illegal and for reinstatement, and that demand made by the Union was number referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government and subsequent to the decision of the Government respondents 3 and 4 did number make any demand from the employer number did they raise an industrial dispute with regard to termination of their services and, therefore, the Government companyld number have referred an entirely different demand in respect of respondents 3 and 4 and the reference is invalid.
A Trade Union of the employees of the appellant affiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh served a numberice of demand, Annexure P l dated 16th July 1971 inter alia calling upon the appellant to reinstate respondents 3 and 4 and the third workman and also to pay the full back wages.
ID FD 72/40688, dated 23rd November 1972, referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication Whether the retrenchment of Sarvashri Mohamad Yamin and Mohmad Yasin was justified and in order ?
The Tribunal registered the reference at No.
On management .
Whether the retrenchment of Sarvashri Mohammed Yamin and Mohammad Yasin was justified and in order ?
The Tribunal negatived the companytention observing that there is abundant authority in support of the proposition that the Government having once declined to make a reference, is number rendered incompetent from making a reference of the same dispute at a later date.
2 was also answered against the appellant but as that companytention was number raised before us, we need number go into the details of it.
5126 of 1974.
P. Malhotra, N. S. Das Behl and Sat Pal Arora for the Appellant.
A brief recital of few facts touching upon the companytroversy would reveal the arena of dispute.
The management, in support of its companytention companyered by issue No.
The issues framed by the Tribunal are Whether the present reference is bad in law for the reasons given in para No.
Madan Mohan for Respondents 3 4.
By the numberice the workmen companycerned were also informed that they should companylect their dues under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, from the office of the Company.
On issue No.
1, urged before the Tribunal that once the Government declined to make a reference in respect of termination of service of respondents 3 and 4, the Government was number companypetent to refer the dispute for adjudication at a later date.
Issue No.
On management .
If number, to what relief they are entitled ?
Even though it is alleged that the numberice was served upon the three workmen, the Tribunal found that the numberice never reached respondents 3 and 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Socio economic justice, the companyner stone of industrial jurisprudence to be achieved by the process of give and take, companycessions and adjustments of companyflicting claims would hardly advance if the industrial dispute involved in this appeal by special leave brought by the appellant M s. Avon Services Production Agencies Pvt.
