AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 29.3.2010 in Ref. No. 127/2003 passed by the Labour Court at Mysore.
Petitioner is a Trade Union representing the workmen in the respondent company. Respondent is a registered company engaged in the business of running hotel. Respondent by their order dated 27.5.2003 retrenched seven employees on the following reasons:
consequent to unprecedent recession in the industry in general and tourism industry in particular, it has become necessary to go for economic re-organisation and rationalisation of the working system with an intention to save the unit and therefore it has become necessary to down size the work force, as it is net possible to run the establishment with the existing staff pattern.
Aggrieved by this retrenchment of seven employees, petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court by way of reference u/s 10(1C) of the I.D. Act. The points of reference are as under:
i) Whether the management of M/s. Green Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore, was justified in retrenching 7 workmen i.e., 1) G.K. Verma (2) H. Ramu (3) Hyakison (4) Rajegowda (5) Ramulinga (6) Abdul Raheem and (7) Mohammed Yusuf Basha w.e.f 27.5.2003?
ii) If not what relief the said workmen are entitled?
iii) Whether the 7 workmen are justified in going on strike w.e.f 27.5.2003 protesting their retrenchment?
iv) If so, to what relief the said workmen are entitled?
Before the Labour Court, petitioner examined one witness as WW.1 and got marked Exs.W1 to W10. Respondent examined one witness as MW.1 and got marked Exs.M1 to M28. The Labour Court on appreciation of the material on record held that by complying Section 25F of the Act respondent has retrenched seven employees and the same is in accordance with law. Consequently under the impugned award, the Labour Court rejected the reference. Hence this writ petition by the worker''s union.
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the reasons assigned by the respondent for retrenchment of seven workmen falls under item 10 and 11 of IV Schedule to the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the reasons assigned by them for retrenchment of seven workmen falls under item No. 10 and 11 of III schedule to the Act. On this controversy the Labour Court has not given a finding and there is no discussion about it. The Labour Court without going into real controversy between the parties committed an error in passing impugned award. On this ground alone, the impugned award is liable to be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the affidavit of MW.1 by way of examination in chief contends that respondent on one hand are recruiting employees and on the other hand, takes a stand that there is necessity to down size the employees. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that recruitment of certain employees are in different category and not in the category of retrenched workmen and that they are only training the employees. Even on this controversy between the parties, there is no finding by the Labour Court. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned award is liable to be set-aside. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned award dated 29.3.2010 in Ref. No. 127/2003 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore is hereby quashed.
iii) The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to both the parties and as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) Registry is hereby directed to send the records to the Labour Court forthwith.