PREMIER AUTOMIBLES LTD Vs. COCHIN LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P19 award passed by the second respondent Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey is under challenge at the hands of the petitioner. By Exts.P14 and P15 respectively dated 30-06-1989 and 27-01-1990,l the Government had referred two disputes for adjudication to the said Tribunal, pertaining to workmen, M/s. Shahul Hameed and K.K.Pareeth, represented in the dispute by the first respondent-Union. The disputes were numbered as I.D.No.107/89 and 27/90 and in view of the common nature of the contentions, they were jointly tried and a common award is passed. By the award, a declaration was made that the retrenchment effected in the case of the said workmen is violative of section 25-N and they were entitled for preferential treatment for appointment as envisaged under section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The facts of the case could be given briefly as following: The petitioner is a public limited company and they have two factories, one at Kurla and another at Kalyan in the State of Maharashtra. According to them, they have separate independent units for production, administration, marketing, sales, personnel etc. The petitioner had a sales depot at Mamangalam at Ernakulam for supplying commercial vehicles to the dealer-M/s. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons. The company had decided to stop production of commercial vehicles and consequent to the above decision it had been decided to wind up the sales depot at Ernakulam and also the depots so functioning in all other States. It was in this circumstance that they had issued orders terminating the services of the workmen in the sales depot at Ernakulam. It is stated that in the Ernakulam sales depot there was a sales representative, two assistant security officers, one watchman, one driver and one mechanic on the rolls. It is also stated that the sales depot was registered under the Kerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, as an establishment. The termination notice issued dated 31-05-1986 from the Bombay office informed the workers that as the Kerala Sales Depot at Mamangalam is closed, effective from 31st May 1986, their services are not required. All the workmen attached to the depot were paid one month s notice wages and retrenchment compensation. The workmen, including Mr.Shahul Hameed and Pareeth, had accepted the compensation so offered on the very date itself. It is further submitted that they had in due course applied for the eligible gratuity and provident fund dues and these also had been made available to them on subsequent dates. Ext.P4 indicates that the amounts given through the agents M/S.T.V.S. & Sons had been accepted by Shahul Hameed on 04-02-87 and Pareeth had accepted the amounts offered on 17-12-1986.

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter they had heard nothing about any claims from any of the workmen until they had been served with notices by a lawyer, Exts.P7 and P6 respectively, relating to K.K.Pareeth dated 03-03-1988 and K.Shahul Hameed dated 12-10-1987. These notices accused the petitioner-company that they had illegally and wrongfully retrenched them from service on 31-05-1986 that they had not paid the statutory gratuity, that minimum wages were not paid to them and there was a claim for bonus. The notices also referred to a circumstance that there was an offer for employment at Calicut when a branch was opened there and this also was not honoured. According to the company, the notices were appropriately replied and they had by Exts.P8 and P9 denied the allegations and also had indicated that the issues, as far as the company is concerned, practically were settled.

(3.) As leading to the reference, it appears that a complaint to the Labour Officer had been filed by the Union in respect of Shahul Hameed on 21-11-1987 and in respect of Pareeth on 20-05-1988. On notice from the Labour Officer in Februray, 1989 and in October, 1989 the petitioner had made known to the officer about their stand detailing all the relevant circumstances and according to them there was no justification in reopening the issue as in fact it amounted to harassment. But, notwithstanding this the matter had been referred to adjudication. The issues so referred for adjudication, identically worded in the orders, were the following: