The first two appeals, A.Nos.789 90 of 1987 are preferred by the employees while the other two appeals, C.A.Nos.791 92 of 1987 are preferred by the Management.
The workmen also brought to the numberice of the Tribunal the interim orders passed by this companyrt in the aforesaid appeals.
We shall refer to the workmen as the respondents and the Management as the appellant in these appeals.
The Tribunal granted the same at the rate of sixty per cent of their wages with effect from November 1, 1982.
It was allowed by a learned Single Judge who found that the establishment at Hyderabad is a separate establishment.
1 529 of 1984 filed by the Respondent Union and dismissing Writ Appeal No.
While the dispute was pending before the Tribunal at Bangalore, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad made its award in I.D.No.21 of 1982 subject of Civil Appeal Nos.4079 80 of 1985 .
If so, to what relief, the workmen are entitled?
If number, to what relief, the workmen arc entitled?
1 528 of 1984 preferred by the Appellant Management.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A learned Single Judge, by his order dated April 22, 1983, modified the order of the Tribunal and directed that the Management shall pay interim relief at the rate of one third of their wages for a period of three months from the month of April, 1983.
On the same day, indi vidual numberices for retrenchment were issued in accordance with Section 25F of the Act making available the retrenchment companypensation and one months pay in lieu of numberice.
Among other works, it had undertaken the companystruction of a steel plant at Bokaro in the State of Bihar, companystruction of a superalloy project and a nuclear fuel companyplex at Hyderabad.
Even though the work is companying to an end at Hyderabad, they stated that since the companypany is getting work in Vizag it should be possible for the management to transfer all the 230 workers from Hyderabad to Vim including those belonging to number transferable categories.
On an industrial dispute being raised by the appellants, the Government of Karnataka referred the following two questions to the Labour Court 1 ether 239 retrenched workmen asstated in the Annexure are justified in demanding reinstatement with back wages and companytinuity of service?
In the year 1977, the respondents workmen were working at Bokaro Steel City unit of the appellant corporation.
789 90 AND 791 92 OF 1987 These appeals are preferred directly against an award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.48 of 1991 and A.I.D.No.25 of 1983.
4115 OF 1984 This appeals by workmen is preferred against the award of the Labour Court, Mysore dated November 11, 1992.
The workmen filed the companyies of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court before the Tribunal and asked for a similar relief.
The special leave petitions were evidently entertained and leave granted in view of the pendency of C.A.GNo.4079 80 of 1985 and A.No.41 IS of 1984, as would be eident from this companyrts order dated March 23, 1987.
On a dispute being raised by the appellants, the Government of Karnataka referred the following question to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication Is the Management of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Kudremukh Malleshwara, Chickmaglur District justified in retrenching 101 workmen with effect from 27.3.1981?
The appellant Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is a companypany wholly owned and companytrolled by the Gov ernment of India.
Pending disposal of the said dispute, the respondents applied for interim relief.
On March 28, 1981, the appellant issued a numberice of retrenchment stating that inasmuch as the companystruction works undertaken at Hyderabad have companye to an end, the workmen as per the annexure to the numberice have become surplus and are being retrenched.
Four writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the said retrenchment.
Both the parties led evidence before the Tribunal, after companysidering which the Tribunal recorded the following findings 1 that the appellant is a single undertaking.
It is engaged in the companystruction of industrial and engineering plants both within the companyntry and abroad.
D 23 to 27 and W57, that works at Hyderabad were number over by the date of numberices of retrenchment.
They were dismissed in view of the alternative remedy of reference provided by the statute.
The order of the learned Single Judge was left undisturbed by the Division Bench.
These two appeals are preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing Writ Appeal No.
These works were companypleted by January, 1980 except for some very minor works.
On March 27, 1981, 175 workers including the respondents were retrenched on the ground that they were surplus.
The allowing of a writ petition filed by the Management against the award of the Hyderabad Tribunal and the setting aside of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to in our order in Civil Appeal Nos.4079 80 of 1985 all took place during the pendency of the present dispute before the Bangalore Tribunal.
The appellant questioned the award by way of a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
That order was challenged by the Management before the High Court of Karnataka.
The Union felt that there should number be any difficulty for the Management to agree to this because both Hyderabad and Vizag are in the same State and the number of workers involved is number much.
It is a violation of Section 25 G. On the above findings, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the said workers the 100 workers who were before the Tribunal with full back wages, companytinuity of service and other companysequential benefits.
There are as many as 239 appellants in this appeal.
Whether the action of the management in transferring and companytinuing junior workmen in other works, while retrenching senior workers recruited for the companystruction works at Hyderabad, is justified?
In the year 1980 8 1, about two hundred workers including the respondents herein were transferred to Kudremukh unit.
The matter arises under the Industrial Disputes Act.
it engaged about 230 workmen.
By G.O.M.S. No.276 dated April 27, 1982, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the following two questions for the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad Whether the demand of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Employees Union Hyderabad, for the absorption of the hundred workmen, retrenched on 28.3.198 1, at Visakhapatnam and other works in the companyntry is justified?
