KHADAR HUSSAIN SAHIB B M Vs. MOHAMED SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are filed by the erstwhile owner of a bus for quashing two orders of the labour court, Madras, in two applications preferred by two workmen employed in a bus of the petitioner for retrenchment compensation. The applications before the labour court were preferred under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the compensation claimed included wages in lieu of the period of notice. The admitted facts are the following.

(2.) THE petitioner in these two writ petitions was the owner of MSZ 7485 for which a permit had been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, for its being used as a stage carriage. This bus together with the permit was sold by the petitioner to one Appandanatha Nainar on 5 October 1956. Respondent 1 to each of the petitions were the conductor and the checking inspector, respectively, employed by the petitioner In relation to the bus. It is alleged that on the sale of the bus these two workmen voluntarily gave up employment under the petitioner and took up employment under the purchaser Nainar on and from 5 October 1956. The claim for retrenchment compensation was resisted by the bus owner before the labour court on the ground that there was no retrenchment actually because the services of the workmen were transferred by the bus owner with their consent and they themselves agreed to serve the purchaser of the bus. The labour court took the view that Section 25ff of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted to the facts of these cases and consequently compensation was payable under Section 25f of that Act.

(3.) THOUGH the point now taken before me was not specifically taken before the labour court, I permitted Sri Viswanathan, counsel for the petitioner, to argue the question of law, namely, whether on the sale of the bus in this case there was a transfer of the ownership or management of the undertaking. Sri Viswanathan contended that Section 25ff would only apply in the case of a bus owner who owns more than one bus, and transfers all the buses and the permits pertaining to those buses and goes out of employment as a bus owner in which case alone, according to him, it may be said that the undertaking was transferred. Whatever might be said of other kinds of businesses, I am very clear that with reference to the business of running stage carriages in this State under the Motor Vehicles Act, each bus is recognized as an individual unit because the rules and the Act contemplate the issuing of a separate permit for each bus. The rules in force do not permit the user of that bus except in accordance with the conditions of the licence appended to the permit. As an illustration I can say that normally the bus owner would not be permitted to ply that bus on any other route except the route for which that bus has been permitted to ply. Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines "retrenchment" thus: Retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment Inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include--