K SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of this writ appeal is the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D. No. 107 of 1987 which was set aside by the learned Single Judge, by the judgment impugned in this writ appeal, upholding the retrenchment of the appellant workman by the 1st respondent Management, pursuant to closure of the establishment. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows.

(2.) The 1st respondent Management is a Company engaged in the manufacture of automobiles having its manufacturing unit at Bombay. Some time in 1971-72, the Company started a Delivery Depot at Cochin with six employees. The appellant workman was one of those employees. In 1986, the management decided to close down the Delivery Depot at Cochin and, by Ext. P2 order dated 31-5-1986, terminated the services of the appellant on closure of the establishment. The appellant workman accepted the termination and received retrenchment compensation and other benefits due to him including provident fund and gratuity. The same was received on 4-2-1987. More than one year and eight months thereafter, on 12-10-1987, the appellant issued Ext. P6 notice to the 1st respondent management stating that the appellant was illegally retrenched from employment, demanding reinstatement with back wages. It was stated therein that the Marketing Executive of the sales depot of the management had given certain promises to the workman, which has not been implemented. It appears that in September 1987 or thereafter, the management Company engaged the services of M/s. T. V. Sundaram (P) Ltd., for handling and managing the Kerala Sales Depot of the Management Company at Calicut. In the circumstances, the workman raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination of service as illegal retrenchment and claiming employment in the Calicut Depot of the Management Company. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha along with another similar dispute raised by another employee of the erstwhile Cochin Depot of the management Company. The Tribunal adjudicated both disputes together and. by a common award, which is Ext. P19 in the original petition, held that the retrenchment of the workman is in violation of S.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the "I.D. Act") and directing that the workmen are entitled to a preferential treatment for appointment as envisaged in S.25H of the I.D. Act, although, in the relief portion, the Tribunal does not mention as to where the preferential appointment should be given. However, from the discussion in the earlier part of the award, it should be presumed that the same is at the Calicut depot of the management Company.

(3.) Against the award, the management Company filed O.P. No. 14136/1993. A learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the award on three grounds, viz. (1) On account of delay and laches in the matter of raising the industrial dispute (2) S.25B is applicable only to an industrial establishment and the Cochin depot of the management Company is not an industrial establishment as defined in S.25L of the I.D. Act and, therefore, S.25N of the I.D. Act is not applicable to the establishment at Cochin and (3) in view of R.78 of the Kerala Industrial Dispute Rules, even assuming that the workman is entitled to preferential appointment under S.25H, such obligation on the part of the employer should be limited to one year from the date of retrenchment. In the original petition, the appellant workman also raised a contention that he is entitled to wages under S.17B of the I.D. Act till the disposal of the original petition, which was also negatived by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that there was no direction for reinstatement which is a condition precedent for claiming S.17B wages and that the petitioner's age was 67 and his retirement age was 60. On these findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the original petition. The said judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal.