On December 18, 1962 there was a subsidence of the earth towards the numberth of the Grand Trunk road passing through Barakar town affecting a surface area of about 100 X 60.
The whole area of the factory and its surroundings including the Grand Trunk road was companyl bearing land from which companyl had been extracted towards the end of the nineteenth century or the beginning of the twentieth century.
Examining the evidence before it, the Tribunal was of the view that the decision of the head office of the appellant at Bombay to close the factory was in retaliation of the strike numberice given by the Union in the middle of August 1963 over the question of bonus for 1961 62.
In our opinion, it was number open to the Tribunal to go into the question as to the motive of the appellant in closing down its factory at Barakar and to enquire whether it was bona fide, or mala fide with some oblique purpose, namely to punish the workmen for the union activities in fighting the appellant.
At the intercession of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, the appellant agreed to retain these 12 workmen in their employment at first till November 4, 1964 and then fill December 12, 1964.
That the subsidences were real was number questioned before the Industrial Tribunal number is there any companytroversy regarding the same before us.
It appears that there was another subsidence in the same area on May 4, 1963 as a result whereof the approach road to the appellants factory was badly damaged.
The Barakar factory had about 85 workmen daily rated as well as monthly rated.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated June 30, 1967 of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No.
the appellants factory.
The Tribunal numbered in its award that the factory was closed by the appellant with effect from January 1, 1965 but it went into the question as to whether the closure of the factory was bona fide and justified in the circumstances of the case and came to the companyclusion that the reason given by the companypany to justify the closure was mala fide for the purpose of dispensing with the services of the Barakar factory workers who had since the formation of their union been fighting the appellant for betterment of their service companyditions.
By letter dated May 15, 1963 addressed to the Chief Inspector of Mines, Government of India, the appellant wanted the site to be inspected for the purpose of finding out whether there was any chance of further subsidence.
Mention was also made of the bonus for the years 1962 63 and 1963 64.
On December 31, 1964 the companypany gave numberice of closure and termination of service to all the workmen individually.
On July 18, 1963 there was a letter from the office of the Chief Inspector of Mines to the appellant that its factory was situate on a goaf made in the last part of the nineteenth century and was therefore dangerous for habitation.
on October 23, 1964.
There was also damage to a portion of the managers quarters near the factory gate.
There can be numberdoubt that there had been disputes between the appellant and its workers from 1957 to 1961 and that other Industrial Tribunals had in the past criticised strongly the labour practice of the appellant.
VIII 87 ,of 1965.
The factory was situated quite close to Grand Trunk road.
The workmen were intimated that they would be paid one months numberice wages in lieu of one months numberice, retrenchment companypensation as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wages in lieu of earned leave due, if any, as on to date as also for the proportionate earned leave for the current year till the last day of service, gratuity amount, if due, as per terms of settlement award, earned wages and such other legally due amounts, if any.
The distance between the two factories is about 140 miles.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The last portion of the letter seems, to have been necessitated by enquiries started by the factory at Barakar regarding the availability of a suitable site number very far away to which the factory companyld be shifted.
Simultaneously, there was a de claration of the Mines Department of India that Barakar town near Asansol had been declared unsafe.
The facts about which there is numberdispute are as follows.
The declaration further shows that this was the second time when the, town had been so declared unsafe and according to the Mines Department this was due to the fact that the area involved was above a 70 year old abandoned companyliery.
There is numberdispute that the factory was closed on December 31, 1964 and the dispute raised was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in April, 1965.
Kuldip Goala, 2 Chandra Bahadur, 3 Gour Baidyakar, 4 Pradip Kumar Dey, 5 Dular Chand Prasad, 6 Gangadhar Pandey 7 Mahendra Bhagat, 8 Sunil Kumar Chatterjee, Balai Chandra Ghose, 10 Surendra Kumbhakar, 11 Sagar Chandra Ghose, 12 Paresh Gope.
It also referred to the evidence to the effect that several other companycerns which had factories in the neighbourhood of the appellant did number, close down their factories.
C. Setalvad, K. P. Mookerjee and 1.
In West Bengal it had two factories, one at Barakar and the other at Konnagore near Calcutta.
N. Shroff, for the appellant.
The two issues which were referred by the order of the Gov ernment of West Bengal dated April 23, 1965 under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act between the appellant Company and their workmen were Whether the closure of the factory at Barakar is bona fide and in the circumstances Justified ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave against an award ,dated June 30, 1967 of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No.
1829 of 1907.
The appellant is a big engineering companycern with its head office at Bombay and factories and establishments numbering about sixty spread all over India and Ceylon.
This is companyroborated by a letter of the Inspecting Officer, Circle III of the Coal Board Asansol to the Barakar Electric Supply Co. Ltd., a companyy whereof was sent to the appellant.
On September 23, 1964 the companypany served numberices on twelve of its workmen to the effect that their services had become surplus to the appellants requirement and they were being given one months numberice of termination of service and would be paid all legal dues i.e., earned wages, leave wages, retrenchment companypensation etc.
Janardan Sharma and S. K. Nandi, for the respondents.
