MANAGEMENT OF ART INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL TIRUNELVELI Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE WORKER CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed as against the order passed in W. P. No. 2719/1993 dated Jun 6, 2002.

(2.) THE brief facts according to the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Art industrial School was initially started in or about the year 1978 for the purpose of enabling the poor citizens to get themselves trained for gainful experience in life. The main object of the school is to train persons in Carpentry, fitting, Blacksmith and Tailoring and make them as Fitters, Turners, Tool and Die makers etc. The said school is recognized by the government of Tamil Nadu. The tool room was not functioning to the expectation of the management and the individuals who were working, namely the old students of the School, did not act in the interests of all concerned and as a result, the institution lost very valuable orders from the companies, which were giving work to help the institution. Consequently, on april 25, 1981, the management issued notice to 29 workers, conveying their decision to retrench them with immediate effect. Along with the said notice, they also sent the pay in lieu of notice. Out of 29 workers, seven persons did not protest and they accepted the pay in lieu of notice. The remaining 22 employees raised the Industrial Dispute in I. D. No. 252/1981. The labour Court, after framing necessary issues, on the basis of the materials placed, found that the retrenchment made by the management is not a bona fide one and passed an award holding that the 22 workmen are entitled to get reinstatement and other attendant benefits. As against the same, the management filed W. P. No. 2719/1993 and the same was dismissed by an order dated June 6, 2002. As against the same, the above writ appeal is filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, since there was fall in production, lack of improvement in volume of work, decrease in order, the appellant institution could not afford to maintain the financial compliment of workmen. Consequently, there is no other option for the management except to retrench the workmen. That apart, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant management is not an unit doing business with a view to make profit but it is a charitable institution, but the learned Judge failed to consider this. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, fall in business was also due to the attitude of the workmen working in the tool room. That apart, retrenchment was not effected straightaway, in fact after making a detail study, it was found that during November 1980 there was not enough work for the third shift and so one shift has to be closed. Consequently, retrenchment was effected with regard to 29 workmen. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel, having totally studied, the management has come to the conclusion that 29 workmen were surplus and unless they were retrenched, the appellant institution could not afford to continue its training activities. If the 29 workers were not retrenched, the institution would not have been run and the same would have resulted in very closure of the institution rendering the remaining workmen without employment. Even retrenchment was effected only on the basis of the principle of last cum first go and the retrenched workers were also paid the compensation of one month salary in lieu of notice in accordance with law. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the institution which was commenced on August 12, 1981 is only an advanced Training Centre and it has absolutely no connection with the appellant institution. Though the management attempted to run the factory with a reduced strength from 25. 4. 1981 i. e. from the date of retrenchment, could not run the same. Hence, they were constrained to close down the unit, from July 6, 1981 and this itself establishes that the retrenchment effected by the management is bonafide and genuine one. The W. P. No. 5086/1988 filed as against the award of the Labour Court dated March 31, 1983 passed in Complaint No. 23/1981 awarding the retrenchment was dismissed by this Court. As such, this issue has become final. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, what is started in the year 1981 is only an Advance Training Centre which does not have any connection with the appellant institution and as such, the question of reinstatement does not arise at all. The another contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that having accepted the retrenchment compensation, the workmen are precluded from questioning the retrenchment. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, had prayed for setting aside the order of the learned single judge as well as the order of the second respondent and also for allowing the writ appeal.