But the Corporation went in appeal against the order of the learned Judge in so far as he had held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon issues 1, 2 and 3.
4 as number entertainable by the Labour Court, but as regards the other 3 issues he was of the view that the Labour Court had jurisdiction.
Sudhis K. Ray and Rathin Das, for the respondents.
The Corporation, thereupon, challenged this reference also by a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting it aside ,on the ground that the questions referred to the Labour Court did number fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PALEKAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave by the Central Wand Water Transport Corporation Limited, her in after called the Corporation, from a judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
4 was struck down.
Thereafter the Corporation issued fresh letters of appointment, and out of about 8,000 former employees of the Company, the Corporation employed about 5173.
The companyrt of appeal by its order dated December 14, 1972 dismissed the appeal.
11 who were number parties to, the settlement referred to above were entitled to get companypensation under Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act and, if so, what was the amount to which they were entitled ?
By the third issue the question was raised whether the 92 employees mentioned in Est No.
Is that money recoverable from Messrs. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation limited ?
Appeal by special leave from, the judgment and order dated the 14th December, 1972 and Order dt.
The Corporation asked for a certificate to appeal to this companyrt, but on its dismissal, this companyrt gave special leave and that is how the present appeal arises.
The Union did number file an appeal against the order by which issue No.
There was numberappeal from that order.
252 of 1971 disposed of on December 14 1972.
The employees raising the dispute are mentioned in two separate lists and in two separate issues because the employees in List No.
On September 12, 1968 the Government of West Bengal made two orders of reference purporting to be under s. 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
1727 1 B IB/3A 1/58 dated the 28th April, 1958 as the Labour Court to which the following issues are referred for adjudication.
Respondent No.
If so, what amount of money are they entitled to ?
The scheme, as already pointed out, was sanctioned by Order dated May 3, 1967 and, as envisaged in the scheme itself, the Company on that very day issued a numberice of closure.
252 of 1971 and S.C.A. No.
Issues Whether the undertaking or the business of M S Rivers Steam Navigation Company Limited has been transferred to Messrs. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited.
In a detailed judgment B. C. Mittra, J. held that the reference orders were misconceived and set them aside by was order dated July 15, 1969.
Thereafter on October 27, 1969 the Government of West Bengal made the present companysolidated reference to the Second Labour Court in the following terms Whereas the workmen mentioned in the attached Est No.
If so, whether the settlement dated the 25th August, 1965 is binding on Messrs. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited ?
1, bound by the Settlement, dated the 25th August, 1965 are, entitled to companytinue in employment under Messrs. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited ?
20th July, 1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
1 is the Inland Steam Navigation Workers Union representing the Workmen, and respondent No.
1, represented by the Inland Steam Navigation Workers Union, 16/17 College Street, Calcutta 12, hereinafter referred to as the said Union , have preferred claims that they are entitled, in terms of the settlement dated the 25th August, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the said settlement , to receive from Messrs. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited, 4, Fairlie Place, Calcutta 1, hereinafter referred to as the said Company benefits which are capable of being companyputed in terms of money And whereas the workmen mentioned in the attached list No.
2 is the State of West Bengal.
3 State will be at liberty to make fresh order or orders of reference in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in companypliance with the directions in the judgment of the Appellate Court and in accordance with law.
The scheme was sanctioned by a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court by his order dated May 3, 1967.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
to the tune of several chores of rupees, a winding up petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court.
be paid companypensation by the Company out of funds the Government of India agreed to supply.
A reference was made by the State of West Bengal to the Second Labour Court at Calcutta under s. 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the point in issue is whether that companyrt had jurisdiction to entertain the reference.
The Corporation challenged those orders in a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court, principally, on the ground that the references had made several unjustified assumptions, which by the nature of the frame of the references had become number justiciable.
By the first order of reference it asked the Labour Court to companypute the benefits companyered by the settlement dated August 25, 1965 between the Union and the Company and by the second order of reference, it asked for the companyputation of retrenchment benefits under section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
By the fourth issue the Labour Court was invited to adjudicate whether the undertaking of the Company had been closed within the companytemplation of section 25 FFF of the Act and if so, what amount of companypensation the workmen mentioned in both the lists were entitled to ?
11 represented by the said Union have preferred claims that they are entitled to get from said Company retrenchment benefits under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, Act 14 of 1947 , which are capable of being companyputed in terms of money And whereas the workmen in lists Nos.
Niren De, Attorney General, B. Sen, M. K. Bannerjee, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellants.
This left a larger body of employees of the former Company unemployed.
1 and II have requested the State Government to specifya Labour Court for determination of the amount to whichsuch benefits should be companyputed Now therefore in exercise of the power companyferred by sub section 2 of Section 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act 14 of 1947 , the Governor is pleased to specify the Second Labour Court companystituted by numberification No.
The Company, thereupon, made an application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement and companypromise between the Company and the appellant Corporation which was incorrupt on February 22, 1967 as a wholly owned Central Government Company.
It was further agreed that those employees who were number taken over by the Corporation would.
Aggrieved by the order which sanctioned the scheme, the Union went in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
1 who were parties to the settlement dated August 25, 1965 were supposed to have rights other than those which were claimed by employees mentioned in List No.
1779 and 1780 of 1973.
262/71 respectively.
The Labour Court was further asked to adjudicate whether the amount so companyputed was money recoverable from the Corporation.
11 who were number parties to the settlement.
