He obviously joined the service in Sindhu Hotchief because of the financial advantages that were to accrue to him.
There, the point raised was that a demand for reinstatement, when there had been retrenchment only and numberdischarge or dismissal, companyld number be held to companystitute an industrial dispute.
3 went to the office of the, appellant, reported himself for duty and requested that he might, be given posting orders in, the appellant.
he had the advantage of working in the higher grade, in which, within two years, he exceeded the maximum of the scale in which he had been working with the appellant.
3 on the ground that the appellant had refused to take him back in its employment.
1 Shri R. S. Ambwaney should be reinstated in the service of M s. Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd., and he should be paid his wages from 21st February, 1958.
Thereupon, respondent No.
At numberstage was it challenged that the documents filed companyld number be taken into account until proved formally in the manner required to be proved in a regular civil proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
3 that he did number receive this order, there was numberjustification for the High Court to hold that this.
3 as well as respondent No.
3 to the Administrative Officer of the.
His case was taken up by Mazdoor Mahajan Sangh, Gandhidham, Kutch, respondent No.2.
Thereafter, respondent No.
150 10 250 on a salary of Rs.
of retrenchment companypensation and all other dues payable to him.
40 P.m.,
The High Court did number attach any value to this order of appointment dated 5th September, 1953, issued by Sindhu Hotchief, on the ground that numberevidence was tendered before the Tribunal to show that this order was actually served on respondent No.
3 was appointed in Sindhu Hotchief by its order dated 5th September,,1953 on a salary of Rs.
The case of respondent No.,
Two facts, numberdoubt, support this plea.
3 in the service of the appellant and payment of his wages from 21st February, 1958.
The first is that respondent No.
3, number had it discharged him from service.
the result of any unfair labour practice or victimization, respondent No.
This order of Sindhu Hotchief dated 5th September, was addressed to respondent No.
3 which had been refused.
Respondent No.
3 was a permanent employee of the appellant and, when he joined the service of Sindhu Hotchief in the year 1953, he only went there on deputation or transfer, so that he companytinued to hold a lien on his permanent post in the appellant Corporation.
It was number even a case of retrenchment.
One is that Sindhu Hotchief was only a Subsidiary Company of the appellant, and the other is that, in its order dated 24th September, 1953, the appellant merely stated that, with effect from the 18th September, 1953, the services of res pondent No.
2 in which again it was stated that Sindhu Hotchief had paid retrenchment dues to respondent No.
3 demanded retrenchment companypensation, from the appellant also.
The other letter was sent on 10th July 1959 by the General Secretary of respondent No.
The Government had to companye to an opinion that an industrial dispute did exist and that opinion companyld only be formed on the basis that there was a dispute between the appellant and the respondents relating to reinstatement.
200 P.m.
3 and payment of back wages from 21st February, 1958.
3 himself and, when there was numberchallenge on behalf of respondent No.
It was urged, by Mr. Gopalakrishnan on behalf of the respondents that this Court cannot examine whether the Government, in forming its opinion that an industrial dispute exists, came to its view companyrectly or incorrectly on the material before it.
A mere demand to a Government, without a dispute being raised by the workmen with their employer cannot become an industrial dispute Consequently, the material before the Tribunal clearly showed that numbersuch industrial dispute, as was purported to be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal, had ever existed between the appellant Corpn.
from the judgment and order dated June 29/30, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
There was numberquestion of wrongful dismissal or discharge by the appellant.
because respondent No.
It appears that, just about this time, the father of respondent No.
The points are 1 that respondent No.
appellant.
Respondent No.
This Company later came to be known as Sindhu Hotchief India Ltd. For companyvenience, both Makenzies Heinrich, Bulzer India Ltd., and Sindhu Hotchief India Ltd. shall hereinafter be referred to as Sindhu Hotchief.
3 in the, appellant Corpn.,
This subsidiary Company, Sindhu Hotchief, wanted some trained employees and amongst others the services of respondent No3 were placed at its disposal by the appellant.
3 and respondent No.
The lease put forward on behalf of the respondents before ,the Industrial Tribunal was that respondent No.
656 of 1966.
3 in respect of the services he had rendered in than Company, but the appellant Corporation was responsible for his retrenchment dues for the service which had been rendered by respondent No.
2 respectively had companyfined their demands to the management to retrenchment companypensation only and did number make any demand for reinstatement.
On the facts of the case as they appeared from the material before the Tribunal, it is number urged that, in fact, the demand, which was being pressed with the management by both the respondents, was in respect of retrenchment companypensation and number reinstatement.
3 had willingly gone to join the service under Sindhu Hotchief.
The probationary period may have to be further extended by any period upto three months.
3, having been given permanent appointment in Sindhu Hotchief and having obtained retrenchment companypensation from that Company, companyld number claim that he was still holding a post in the appellant Corporation and companyld number, therefore, claim reinstatement, 2 that the dispute that was raised by respondent No.
We have already referred to one of these letters which was sen on 7th March, 1958 by respondent.
Once he was companyfirmed in Sindhu Hotchief, he companyld obviously number companytinue to be an employee of the appellant corporation simultaneously.
3 was that he was told orally by the officers of the appellant on 2nd September, 1953 that he was to work in the subsidiary companypany.
2 also, wrote a letter to the, management of the appellant, asking for payment of retrenchment company pensation to respondent No.
Such material companyld number possibly exist when, as early as March and July, 1958, respondent No.
3 died and he was granted leave by the appellant for the period from 2nd September to 17th September, 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Since numbersuch dispute about reinstatement was raised by either of the respondents before the management of the appellant, it is clear that the State Government was number companypetent to refer a, question of rein statement as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the appellant has companye up to this Court in this appeal by special leave.
Thus, both the respondents, in their claims put forward before the management of the appellant, requested for payment of retrenchment companypensation and did number raise any dispute for reinstatement.
3 was appointed in Sindhu Hotchief under the order dated 5th September, 1953, which laid down that in that Company he would be on a probation for a period of three months in the first instance.
since the validity of the retrench of respondent No.
3 of I its inability, to re employ him on the ground that the post, which he had been occupying in 1953 had been permanently filed up.
In proceeding on this basis, the High Court clearly fell into an error, because, in this case, when the adjudication of the industrial dispute was, taken up by the Tribunal, all the parties companytented themselves with filing documentary evidence and numberoral evidence was given by any party.
The dispute that the State Government companyld have referred companypetently was the dispute relating to payment of retrenchment companypensation by the appellant to respondent No.
Corporation.
2 with the management of the appellant was companyfined to companypensation for retrenchment and did number relate to the validity of the retrenchment or reinstatement, so that the Government of Gujarat had numberjurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal which it did , and 3 that, in any case.
On 21st February, 1958, respondent No.
This was also refused.
He served Sindhu Hotchief for a period of about 4 1/2 years and became companyfirmed there in accordance with the terms and companyditions which were offered to him by Sindhu Hotchief.
The demand for reinstatement seems to have been given up, because the respondents realised that the services of respondent No.
3 companytinued to serve in that Company until 20th February, 1958, i.e. for a, period of about 4 1/2 yars.
Appeal by special leave.
In this appeal, three points have been urged on behalf of the appellant to challenge the orders of the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court.
No specific order was passed terminating his services in the appellant Corporation Though this circumstance would raise a presumption that respondent No.
The prayer was that, as the appellant had refused him re employment, arrangement should be made to pay his retrenchment dues according to section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The appellant informed respondent NO.
It seems that, thereafter, there were some companyciliation proceedings and, subsequently, on the report of the Conciliation Officer, the Government of the State of Gujarat, by its numberification dated 15th November, 1960, referred the dispute to the, Industrial Tribunal,, Gujarat, for adjudication.
and the respondents and the State Government in making a reference, obviously companymitted an error in basing its opinion on material which was number relevant to the formation of opinion.
K. Sen and N. H. Hingorani, for the appellant.
No doubt, the order of the State Government making the reference mentions that the Government had companysidered the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under sub section 4 of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, in respect of the dispute between the,appellant and workmen employed under it over the demand mentioned in the Schedule appended to that order and, in the Schedule, the Government mentioned that the dispute was that of reinstatement of respondent No.
Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
3 were placed at the disposal of Sindhu Hotchief.
The Triunal, after hearing the parties, gave its Award on 10th August, 1961, directing reinstatement of respondent No.
3 had number been terminated by discharge or dismissal, but by retrenchment only, and that retrenchment number being.
3 did number cease to be an employee 0 the appellant when this order was issued on 24th September 1953, this presumption is rebutted by two circumstances.
240 p.m. as an Accounts Clerk on the companyditions of service laid down in that order.
3 worked with Sindhu Hotchief up to 20th February, 1958 when his services were terminated after payment.
The appellant challenged this award before the High Court of Gujarat by a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but the petition was dismissed.
After hearing learned companynsel for parties, we have companye to the companyclusion that the first two grounds urged on behalf of the appellant must be accepted, while the third does number arise.
589 of 1961.
as an Accounts Clerk at Gandhidham on 13th December, 1950 in the pay scale of Rs.
,order had number been served on him.
3, was employed by the Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd., the appellant.
The companyfirmation of his appointment would be companysidered at the end of his probationary period and would depend on the efficiency and utility of his services to the Company.
In the evidence given before the Tribunal, there were included two letters written by the two respondents companytaining the demand for retrenchment companypensation.
The matter referred for adjudication was described in the numberification as follows Demand No.
The Secretary of respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. R. S. Ambwaney, respondent No.
in the scale of Rs.
200 plus 20 per cent as site allowance.
This site allowance was discontinued in March, 1952.
With effect from 18th September 1953, his services were placed at the disposal of Sindhu Hotchief and an order to that effect was issued in writing on behalf of the appellant on 24th September, 1953.
In the year 1953, the Government of India decided to develop Kandla as a port and a subsidiary companypany was formed by the appellant under the name of Makenzies Heinrich Bulzer India Ltd. in which one of the principal shareholders was the appellant.
3 by the appellant was number challenged, the, Tribunal companymitted a manifest error in directing reinstatement instead of awarding retrenchment companypensation.
