AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Suguna, J.—This writ appeal is filed as against the order passed in W.P.No.2719 of 1993 dated 06.06.2002.
The brief facts according to the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Art Industrial School was initially started in or about the year 1978
for tie purpose of enabling the poor citizens to get themselves trained for gainful experience in life. The main object of the school is to train persons
in Carpentry, Fitting, Blacksmith and Tailoring and make them as Fitters, Turners, Tool and Die makers etc. The said school is recognized by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. The tool room was not functioning to the expectation of the management and the individuals who were working,,
namely the old students of the School, did not act in the interests of all concerned and as a result, the institution lost very valuable orders from the
companies, which were giving work to help the institution. Consequently, on 25.04.1981, the management issued notice to 29 workers, conveying
their decision to retrench them with immediate effect. Along with the said notice, they also sent the pay in lieu of notice. Out of 29 workers, seven
persons did not protest and they accepted the pay in lieu of notice. The remaining 22 employees raised the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.252 of
1981. The Labour Court, after framing necessary issues, on the basis of the materials placed, found that the retrenchment made by the
management is not a bonafide one and passed an award holding that the 22 workmen are entitled to get reinstatement and other attendant benefits.
As against the same, the management filed W.P.No.2719 of 1993 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 06.06.2002. As against the
same, the above writ appeal is filed.
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, since there was fall in production, lack of improvement in volume of work,
decrease in order, the appellant institution could not afford to maintain the financial compliment of workmen. Consequently, there is no other option
for the management except to retrench the workmen. That apart, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant
management is not an Unit doing business with a view to make profit but it is a charitable institution, but the learned Judge failed to consider this.
Apart from this, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, fall in business was also due to the attitude of the workmen working
in the tool room. That apart, retrenchment was not effected straightaway, in fact after making a detail study, it was found that during November
1980 there was not enough work for the third shift and so one shift has to be closed. Consequently, retrenchment was effected with regard to 29
workmen. Apart from this, according to the learned Counsel, having totally studied, the management has come to the conclusion that 29 workmen
were surplus and unless they were retrenched, the appellant institution could not offered to continue its training activities. If the 29 workers were
not retrenched, the institution would not have been run and the same would have resulted in very closure of the institution rendering the remaining
workmen without employment. Even retrenchment was effected only on the basis of the principle of last cum first go and the retrenched workers
were also paid the compensation of one month salary in lieu of notice in accordance with law. Apart from this, according to the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant, the institution which was commenced on 12.08.1981 is only an Advanced Training Centre and it has absolutely no
connection with the appellant institution. Though the management attempted to run the factory with a reduced. strength from 25.04.1981 i.e. from
the date of retrenchment could not run the same. Hence, they were constrained to close down the unit, from 06.07.1981 and this itself establish
that the retrenchment effected by the management is bonafide and genuine one. The W.P. No. 5086 of 1988 filed as against the award of the
Labour Court dated 31.03.1983 passed in Complaint No. 23 of 1981 awarding the retrenchment was dismissed by this Court. As such, this issue
has become final Apart from this, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, what is started in the year 1981 is only an Advance Training
Centre which does not have any connection with the appellant institution and as such, the question of reinstatement does not arise at all. The
another contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that having accepted the retrenchment compensation, the workmen are
precluded from questioning the retrenchment. On these grounds, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, had prayed for setting aside the
order of the learned single Judge as well as the order of the second respondent and also for allowing the writ appeal.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. As far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellant that inasmuch as the institution which was commenced in me year 1981 is an Advance Training Centre and it is different one and does
not have any connection with the appellant institution is concerned, the Labour Court as well as the learned Judge has given a finding in paragraph
8 which reads as follows:
...
It is clear from the discussions of the labour court that though there were sufficient workmen in the school, they engaged casual labourers instead of
taking the retrenched workmen. In the absence of any other material, the factual finding arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be rightly interfered
by this Court.
A perusal of the Labour Court award shows that the workmen concerned are able to substantiate their case by placing acceptable documentary
evidence including the financial progress and the position of the management. Though it is stated that after 1980, they were running only training
institutions, the document produced by the workmen establishes the financial progress and production in the appellant institution. After analysing
these details, the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that these details clearly establish that the production of the institution every year was
growing up and also observed that even if the reason given by the management for retrenchment of 29 workers is discontinuance of the third shift
and also want of work, only 5 to 7 workmen alone should have been retrenched and not 29 workmen as has been done by management. After
holding so, the Labour Court has held that the order of retrenchment prima facie appears to be not a bonafide one. After referring to various facts
and figures, the Labour Court has concluded that the Union has established that even after retrenchment, several casual labourers were engaged by
the management. By referring to all these details, the Labour Court has concluded that those figures indicate that there was a full work and the
management gained substantial profit also. Both the Labour Court as well as the learned Judge basing on the document produced by the workmen
have held, it is well established that there was a financial progress and production in the appellant institution that apart production in the institution
was growing every year. That apart, as per the retrenchment notice, the reasons for retrenchment was discontinuance of the third shift and also
want of work. Basing on the document produced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has given a conclusion even with regard to the
closure of the third shift also the retrenchment should only to 5 to7 persons and not 29 workers. These findings of the Labour Court clearly lead to
a conclusion that the retrenchment prima facie appears to be not a bondafide one and apart from this, as per the findings of the Labour Court after
the retrenchment of 29 workers, several casual labourers were engaged by the management and basing on this, the Labour Court has given the
finding that there was full work in the School and they have gained substantial profit also. If it is so, the management should have issued notice to
the retrenched employees and they would have been offered the employment. Basing on this finding alone, the Labour Court has ordered for
reinstatement and also backwages. Though it; is argued by the leaned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the Advance Training Centre is a
different institution, it is not the case of the appellant that the same was not run by the appellant and the production in that so called new unit is
different one. Apart from this, as rightly observed by the Labour Court, under such circumstances, the appellant management should have issued a
notice to the workmen offering employment. The specific finding of the Labour Court as well as the learned Judge after closure, under the different
nomenclature the same production was carried out and there was also financial growth as well as production, this finding is not rebutted by the
appellant. As per the finding of the learned Judge, the W.P. No. 5086 of 1988 filed as against the award passed in complaint No. 23 of 1981
came to be dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay and the merits of the claim were not at all considered by this Court in that writ petition.
The workers have received the retrenchment compensation only under protest, as such the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that
after receiving the compensation they are precluded from challenging the retrenchment will not stand.
Apart from this, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that if at all the workmen can be entitled only for the wages from
25.04.1981 to 06.07.1981 i.e. the closure of the appellant institution is concerned, when it is a specific finding of the Labour Court as well as the
learned Judge. the retrenchment is not for bonafide reasons and apart from this after retrenchment of the workmen, under the different
nomenclature the institution was running and profit was also there and it is also a specific finding by the Labour Court that there was a growth in
business as well as profit as such,, this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot stand. That apart it is a specific finding of the
Labour Court that the casual labourers were employed and production was also grown every year and as such, the other arguments of the learned
Counsel for the appellant that there was no post consequently there cannot be any reinstatement will also not stand. Though a stand has been
raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the workmen concerned were gainfully employed, no document has been produced to
substantiate this contention and as such the said contention also cannot stand.
For the foregoing reasons we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal is
dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.