MCKENZIES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality of an award of the Labour Court, Madras, in Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1958, on its file is the subject matter of this petition. The dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court and the legality in the award which is in controversy in this petition, is whether the dismissal of eight workers of the petitioners' establishment was justified and the relief to which they were entitled.

(2.) THE petitioners were an engineering firm with branches all over India. They had a branch at Madras and it was the case of the management that the Madras branch having proved a loss, they were taking steps to have it closed. The Tribunal found as a fact that losses were being incurred by the Madras branch so that the desire of the management to have it closed was bona fide. The question however that had still to be considered was as to whether the retrenchment of these eight workers was or was not justified. The Tribunal found that the retrenchment of six of the workers was unjustified for the reason that the management had not established that they could not be absorbed in the works which they were admittedly carrying on to complete the contracts which had already been taken on hand. It was common ground that with a view to closure, the petitioner establishment had not undertaken any new contracts.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that the present was not a case of retrenchment under S. 25-F but of a closure of business falling within S. 25-FFF, and, no doubt, if it was a case of closure S. 25-F would not apply, and this has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Barsi Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. K. N. Joglekar, 1957-1 Lab LJ 243: ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 121 ). But the question still remains as to whether in the case of the petitioner establishment it is a case of closure or only a retrenchment falling within Sec. 25-F.