The learned Judge wound up his judgment in these words I am therefore of the opinion that the companyclusion of the Labour Court cannot be sustained, on the facts and circumstances of this case.
8579 of 1967 for review of the order dated April 4, 1967 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
Relying upon the observations made in the writ appeal, appellants companytended before the Labour Court that they were entitled to re agitate the matters in companytroversy.
The appellants filed writ appeal No.
was pending before the Labour Court, the workmen moved a petition in the High Court, CMP No.
The companyrectness of this judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
Setting aside the award, Venkatadri J. held by his judgment dated February 20, 1967 that the number employment of workmen was unjustified, that the intention of the management was to weed out those whom it did number want and that the reasons given by the management for terminating the services of the workmen were fanciful.
By its judgment of July 7, 1970 the Division Bench Veeraswami C.J. and Gokulkrishnan J. quashed the award of the Labour Court and remitted the matter to it with a direction that it ought number to go into the merits or the propriety of the retrenchment, but dispose of the matter only in respect of the proper relief or reliefs to be given to the petitioners.
While dismissing Writ Appeal No.
Therefore the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal.
The learned Chief Justice who, on behalf of the Bench, delivered a short order said that the observation which they had made while dismissing the Writ Appeal, to the effect that Venkatadri J. had number expressed any final companyclusion and that the Labour Court need number interpret that judgment as expressing such a companyclusion was prima facie in favour of the employer organisation and therefore it was difficult to appreciate how they companyld ask for a review of that order.
The Labour Court was called upon to choose between these irreconcilable orders and it exercised that choice by adopting the companyrse companymended by the Division Bench, a companyrse which accorded with its own view of the matter.
7125 of 1967, seeking clarification of the judgment dated February 20, 1967 of Venkatadri J. By an order dated June 26, 1967 the learned Judge clarified his earlier judgment by saying that he had remitted the matter to the Labour Court only for the purpose of determining what reliefs companyld be given to the employees who were retrenched from service, and that the Labour Court was trying to reopen the matter by taking advantage of the companycluding portion of the judgment, in which it was said that the matter was remitted for fresh disposal.
122 of 1969, quashing an award dated May 25, 1968 of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras.
Against that award the workmen filed a writ petition No.
122 of 1969.
While allowing the writ petition the learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgment of the Bench, observed that the petition discloses an unfortunate state of affairs.
By its award dated May 25, 1968 the Labour Court took the view that ,,it is settled law that the powers of a High Court while hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of, the Constitution of India are limited only to remitting a case to the lower Court for fresh disposal in its entirety and that companysequently any observations made by it while ordering such remission are mainly obiter dicta, that the appellate companyrt had said that Venkatadri J. had number expressed any final companyclusion and therefore the whole matter was at large.
from the judgment and order dated July 7, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.
The matter then went back for fresh disposal to the Labour Court.
Obviously, the Labour Court found itself in a quandary.
That appeal came for hearing before Anantanarayanan C.J. and Natesan J., who by their order dated April 4, 1967 dismissed the appeal in limine, with the following observations In advancing the arguments before us for the admission of the writ appeal, learned companynsel for the employer Organisation submits that on certain of the vital issues of fact, the learned Judge has already expressed companyclusions, which may be ultimately prejudicial to the case which the management hoped to establish before the Labour Court.
But another Division Bench in a writ petition against this fresh adjudication has quashed that award, upholding in effect the judgment of Venkatadri J. and differing clearly from the order passed by Anantanarayanan C.J. and Natesan J. while dismissing writ appeal No.
113 of 1967 against the judgment of the learned judge.
While setting aside its award, Venkatadri J. had recorded an unequivocal finding that the retrenchment of the workmen was unjustified.
The attention of the learned Judge was drawn to the order dated April 4, 1967 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
209 of 1964 in the Madras High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The workmen objected to that companyrse, companytending that Venkatadri J. had recorded a specific finding that the number employment of workmen was unjustified and that this finding was binding on the Labour Court.
The teamed Judge took the view that the workmen were number bound by the ex parte observations made by the Division Bench while dismissing Writ Appeal 113 of 1967 in limine, that the order of Venkatadri J. dated February 20, 1967 must be treated as final and companyclusive and therefore the Labour Court was bound to give effect on that order.
In 1961 the appellants, Oriental Mercantile Agency, re trenched six of their workmen resulting in an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Madras to the Labour Court for adjudication.
By its order dated July 31, 1967 the Division Bench companysisting of the same learned Judges, Anantanarayanan C.J. and Natesan J. , dismissed the review application.
113 of 1971.
In spite of this view of the appellate Court, Venkatadri J. passed the clarificatory order of June 26, 1967 protesting, that the Labour Court would number be justified in going into the matter once again in face of the finding recorded by him that the order of retrenchment was unsustainable.
Appeal by special leave.
122 of 1969 , which was referred by a learned Single Judge Ismail J. to a Division Bench.
K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthi and N. G. R. Prasad, for the respondents.
Resolutely, the Labour Court stuck to the companyclusion recorded by Shri M. S. Abdul Azeez in his award dated June 14, 1963 that the retrenchment of the workmen was justified.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated July 7, 1970 of a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras in Writ Petition No.
113 of 1967 but he took the view that in effect, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court and that all that was necessary was to give an opportunity to the management to reopen the matter by filing a review of the order passed in the Writ Appeal.
The question referred to the Labour Court was whether the number employment of the six workmen was justified and what relief they were entitled to.
C. Chagla and S. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
113 of 1967.
Against the award of the Labour Court the workmen filed writ petition No.
By its award dated June 14, 1963 the Labour Court Shri S. Abdul Azeez held that the number employment of the workmen was justified and therefore they were number entitled to any relief.
Accordingly, the management filed CMP No.
The Labour Court can only decide what proper reliefs can be given to the employees who were retrenched from service.
While the matter.
It embarked upon a fresh adjudication and firmly adhered to its earlier companyclusion which was characterised by Venkatadri J. as unsupportable.
