SWADESH PRESS Vs. THE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have a notice to some of their workmen; namely, opposite parties 4 to 10 and some others (Annexure 2) to the effect that due to installation of automatic machines in the press, retrenchment had become inevitable and, as such, the services of these workmen would be terminated with effect from 6th Aug. 1972. A copy of each individual notice to the workmen is annexure 3. This notice further laid down that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the opposite parties were entitled to retrenchment compensation. Accordingly, they were. being informed of the termination one month in advance. It was further mentioned in this notice that thev would be paid retrenchment compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for each year. The workmen were further informed that they may collect their dues according to their convenience at anv time between 11 a. m. to 3 p. m. on or after 7th Aug., 1972. The opposite parties, did actually collect their dues on 8th Aug. Subsequently, however, at their instance, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court the dispute referred to was whether the retrenchment of the opposite parties was justified and legal and, if not, to what benefits or compensation they were entitled, with particulars. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioners had failed to comply with Cl. (b). of S. 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as payment of compensation was not made before the workmen were relieved, but after the retrenchment became effective. Cl. (a) was obviously not attracted as the workmen were given one month's notice. On this finding, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the opposite parties with full back wages. This order dated 23-11-1977, Annexure 1, is the subject of challenge in this writ petition, the petition is contested by the said workmen.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The first question that arises for consideration is whether the Labour Court was correct in taking the view that Cl. (b) of S. 6N, was violated. This section, which is identical in terms with S. 25F of the Central Act, lays down, so far as material as follows: