SUNDARESWARAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mr. N. Sundareswaran, proprietor, N. S. Tin Factory, Quailing. The complaint is directed against an award dated 11 September 1957 and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 24 Setember 1957, passed by the respondent 1, Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in dispute connected with the retrenchment by him of certain workers of his tin factory represented by the respondent 2, the Tin Factory Workers' Union.

(2.) THE tin factory is engaged in the business of making tin cans used for packing cashews that are exported from India. There are three different sections in the factory, viz. , the tinkering section, the machine section and the sundry section. Each section has its category of workers. The tinkering section which is concerned with tin making has 28 men called tinkers. On 4 June 1955 the petitioner put up notice retrenching twelve tinkers. Six of them accepted compensation and left service. The rest approached Government through the union and got the matter referred to the respondent 1 tribunal. Evidence was let in on both sides and eventually the tribunal passed the award in question filed as Ex. A, reinstating the six workers concerned with back wages at the rate of Rs. 20. The main ground taken by the petitioner before this Court is that the tribunal has exercised jurisdiction arbitrarily in that it ignored material and important facts and the award was in consequence wrong and also suffered from error apparent on the face of the record. The prayer was accordingly made for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing it. The respondent 2 union has appeared to contest.

(3.) NOW the only ground which it would appear was stated in the notice for retrenchment dated 4 June 1955 was " long and continuous shortage of work in the section. " By Ex. D letter of protest dated 9 June 1955 the union questioned the above assumption and further complained that the workers were being overworked before and after the retrenchment. Before the tribunal the long and continuous shortage was explained to be the fall in production for a period of five of six months immediately preceding the notice and evidence was also sought to be let in as to a fall in the average daily production subsequent to the retrenchment. The tribunal examined the figures of the total production in the first halves respectively of 1954 and 1955 and found that there had not been any appreciable fall and that except for an unprecedented rise In one particular month, viz. , April 1954, there had been appreciable rise or a steady upward trend as months passed in 1955. In the tribunal's opinion, the contrast, if at all, between the production figures before and after the retrenchment also relied on by the management could not be helpful. The tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the ground alleged in the retrenchment notice had not been made out.