RAJ HANS PRESS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition to challenge an award made by Shri K. S. Sidhu, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Delhi. The dispute referred to the Court was concerned with whether the termination of services of certain workmen employed by Raj Hans Press was illegal or unjustified, and if so, what relief should be given. By means of the award under challenge, the Labour Court held that the termination of services of all the workmen was illegal and void and they were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE only challenge to the award, as far as I can make out in this petition, is as to whether the Labour Court was right in holding the termination of services to be illegal because it contravened Section 23f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner rests on the contents of the letter of termination which based the termination on the fact that the machine binding composing departments had been closed with effect from 3rd March, 1972, due to continuous loss and no sufficient orders for business. The finding in respect of the alleged closure of these departments was that no payment had been made to the workmen concerned before their services were terminated. Therefore, Section 25f of the Act had been infringed. On the other hand, the case of the management was that the letter press department had closed. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no closure of business, because the press was going on and, secondly, there was inter-changeability in the duties of the workmen and the workmen concerned were not employed only in respect of the alleged closed department. I may reproduce the findings of the Tribunal: I am not prepared to accept the stand taken by the management that all these workmen were retrenched by reason of the closure of the departments, in which they have been working. As already stated, the employees in the offset department and in the letterpress department were interchangeable. It will be recalled that Amar Chand Jain, one of the partners of the management himself, admitted that Chander Bhan, who was employed on the letter press used to be put on work on the offset press whenever necessary. Despite the alleged closure of the letter press, the management has been carrying on its work in the dye cutting department, which is supposed to be ancillary to the letter press. All this would show that the letter press employees and the offset employees of the management cannot be divided into water tight compartments for purposes of retrenchment The entire press including the letter press and the offset press consisted of one integrated unit and the workmen concerned were, therefore, entitled to be treated as belonging to the same category to which the workmen, who were not retrenched, belong. The findings that there is one integrated department, the workmen are interchange, able and there has been no closure within the measure of Section 25fff, are clear findings of fact which would not normally be open to attack under Article 226 of the Constitution. The scope of a writ under Article 226 of the Continuation is quite limited and would depend on whether a writ of center art should issue due to a jurisdictional defect. It would certainly not lie on the ground that the judgment on merits was wrong.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the law to be applied in respect of a petition like the present is the one laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, any infringement by the Tribunal or Labour Court contravening the principles settled by the Supreme Court is a mistake of law which can be corrected by reference to Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the press, which is the petitioner before this Court, consists of two departments-the offset press and the letter press. The letter press having closed down, means that the employees' services have been terminated on this account, to which Section 25fff applies; and they have not been retrenched, to which Section 25f applies. In this respect, it is necessary to note that Section 25f and Section 25fff are two sections of the Act which are very much similar in operation. The provisions of Section 25f require retrenchment compensation to be paid before retrenchment becomes effective. It is settled law that if a retrenchment takes place without paying the compensation, then the retrenchment is ineffective. Although, the provisions of Section 25fff are similar in respect of closure of business, it has been repeatedly held by the Courts that the non-payment of the compensation before making the closure does not mike the closure ineffective. Hence, the only difference between these two provision is that in case a retrenchment is made without paying compensation, the retrenchment is ineffective. Whereas in a case in which closure is made without paying compensation, the closure is still effective. The right to get compensation subsists to the workman concerned. In the present case, the question whether the termination is on account of "retrenchment" or "closure" becomes of great importance, because whichever it was, was made without prepaying compensation. If it is a case of closure then the termination is invalid. This is the settled legal position.