HOOGHLY JUTE MILLS Vs. THEIR EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal with special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution arises out of a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, reversing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, and ordering the reinstatement of one Nanilal Mukherjee in the employ of the appellant with full pay and emoluments and continuity of service without break.

(2.) Nanilal Mukherjee had been employed by the appellant on and from the 26th July 1944 as a Turbine Fitter. He continued in the said employ as a Turbine Fitter until July 1951 when the appellant mills were electrified. On such electrification some employees were discharged by the appellant as redundant. Nanilal Mukherjee would also have been similarly discharged, but he was retained in its employ by the appellant as he was a senior Ministry and the appellant intended to absorb him, if Possible, in the new set up of mistries in the electrified mills. He was accordingly given a trial in the new set up for a sufficiently long time. One Collins who was the Overseer in the Mills, however, made a report on 4-9-52 to the Manager of the Mills stating that Nanilal Mukherjee had been working as a general Vice Ministry after the turbine closed down, but it was found after observation that he had no aptitude for this type of work and should therefore the treated as redundant. Acting upon this report the Manager of the Mills on 15-9-52 gave notice to Nanilal Mukherjee dispensing with his services as from 30-9-52. He was paid :- (1) Gratuity for 4 1/2 years at the rate of half a month's average basic wages, (2) his own and Employer's contributions in full to his Provident Fund and (3) earned leave with wages, which he accepted.

(3.) It appears that the National Union of Jute Workers, Calcutta, the respondent herein, of which Nanilal Mukherjee was a member, espoused his cause and the dispute arising out of his discharge by the appellant was inter alia referred by the Government of West Bengal for adjudication to the First Industrial Tribunal Calcutta. Evidence was led on behalf of the appellant and the respondent; Nanilal Mukherjee and James Collins were examined before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties and the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that Nanilal Mukherjee was discharged by the appellant by way of retrenchment owing to the fact that he could not be gainfully employed after the dismantling of the Turbine and that his discharge was not effected by way of victimisation or unfair labour practice. The Tribunal therefore held that he was not entitled to reinstatement.