A number of documents were filed in support of the respective companytentions.
The Union of India asked for leave to intervene as important questions of companystruction of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act and the 1950 Act were involved.
Aggrieved by this decision the appellant companypany applied for and obtained from this Court special leave to appeal against this order.
This application of the respondents was also acceded to and the two appeals have been heard together.
The respondents subsequently filed an application for special leave to appeal against this decision in so far as the Labour Appellate Tribunal had number allowed their full claim as surmmarised above and in so far as the names of 17 persons had been struck off on the allegation of the companypany that they were number workmen.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 18th day of November 1954 of the Labour Appel 1243 late Tribunal of India, Bombay in Application Misc.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal at the very outset of its judgment under appeal states its finding on the merits of the action proposed to be taken by the companypany as follows There can be little doubt that the retrenchment has been occasioned by the failure of the companycern to secure sufficient work owing to absence of licenses from Government and, therefore, retrenchment must be regarded as inevitable and the application before us bona fide.
H. Buch and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents in Civil Appeal No.
The appellant companypany carries on business as assemblers of motor vehicles from companypletely knocked down assemblies imported into India.
As those workmen were companycerned with the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal the companypany applied to the Appellate Tribunal under section 22 of the 1950 Act for permission to retrench them.
Such 1247 leave was granted.
There was some appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal arising out of disputes between the appellant companypany and its workmen.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
This companytention was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal with the following observation That view is quite untenable as has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal.
2 of 1955 and appellants in Civil Appeal No.
4 of 1955.
It is alleged that the name of the appellant companypany had been removed by the Government of India from the list of approved manufacturers maintained by them and that, in the result, it had been unable to secure further import licenses for the import of companypletely knocked down assemblies of motor vehicles and that companysequently on and from the 1st November 1953 the companypany had to lay off a number of its workmen, for it had to operate the various departments of its factory at greatly reduced strength.
As the appellant companypany saw numberprospect of any increase in the scope of its present operation which would provide employment for the workmen who had been laid off, it had become necess 1244 sary to retrench the workmen named in Annexure A to the application.
2 and 4 of 1955.
Bombay No.
In the penultimate paragraph of the written statement it was submitted that in the event of the Labour Appellate Tribunal granting the permission in whole or in part such permission should be granted subject to the following companyditions Payment of full wages with dearness allowance for the entire period of lay off Payment of one months numberice pay and retrenchment companypensation at the rate of one months wages including dearness allowance for every companypleted year of service and part thereof in addition to the gratuity as per the scheme in force in the companypany Alternatively to 2 above and in cage the Labour Appellate Tribunal took the view that the 1245 lay off was governed by section 25 C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, payment of companypensation at 50 per cent.
773 of 1954.
M. Seervai, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
February 3.
2 of 1955 and respondent in Civil Appeal No.
It was companytended that there was numberimmediate cause for making the application, that the companypany was motivated by ulterior motives to deprive the workmen of their dues which even according to the companypany would become due and payable to the workmen on the expiry of the one year of the said lay off period.
of their wages plus dearness allowance for the entire period of lay off to the date of discharge in addition to the numberice pay and gratuity as claimed in 2 above and Payment of leave wages as per existing rules, taking the entire period of lay off as service.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India G. N. Joshi and P. C. Gokhale with him , for the Intervener Union of India .
The respondents maintained that the application was number maintainable in law, was mala fide and should be dismissed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, dated the 18th November 1954 which was made on an application made by the appellant companypany on the 6th September 1954 under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950 Act XLVIII of 1950 which is hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act.
4 of 1955.
The respondents through their Union, the Automobile Manufacturers Employees Association, Bombay, filed a written statement on the 1st November 1954 making diverse allegations against the companypany and companytending that the companypany bad itself to blame for having brought about the lay off.
It was further alleged that in or about April 1954 the companypany recalled some of the workmen out of those who had been laid off since November 1953 violating all principles on which a recall should have been made and that by such arbitrary and unscientific recall the companypany had imposed disproportionate work loads on the recalled workmen, thereby altering their companyditions of service to their prejudice.
