THE ANAKAPALLI CO Vs. THE ANAKAPAILI CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are preferred by the management of the Analapali Co-operative Society against the Judgement of Obul Reddi J. (as he then was) dismissing he writ petitions.

(2.) The petitioner society is incorporated under the provisions of A.P Co-operative Societies Act and its object is to provide marketing and other facilities to its members who are mainly the agriculturists and growers in the taluqs of Anakapalli, chodavaram and Yelamanchalli, in Visakhapatnam District.

(3.) The society mainly deals in jaggery besides the other produce like paddy, groundnut, chillies etc. It has a membership of more than 6,000 members. In 1967 the petitioner employed 71 employees. The Special Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed on 2-9-1967 after a personal inspection of the accounts of the society, that with a view to increase the profits of the society, it is necessary to retrench a part of the staff. He noted that a staff of 24 is sufficient for the purposes of the society appointed a Sub Committee the said recommendation of the Deputy Registrar which reported that society but the registrar threatened the society with supersession in case the recommendation of the Deputy Registrar is not carried out, with the result that the managing committee of the society, passed a resolution on 12-5-2968 in pursuance where to 34 employees were retrenched on three different dates. On an industrial dispute being raised, the Government referred the dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' to the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act to the Labour Court Guntur in G.O. Ms NO. 36 dated 23-1-1969 for adjudication of the two questions namely (1)whether the retrenchment of the workmen referred to in the said G.O. is just filed? and (2) if not, to what relief they are entitled? The Labour Court found that the retrenchment of all the petitioners is not justified though it held that there is no motive of victimisation nor any unfair labour practise involved in the retrenchment. It further held that the petitioners is violative of the provision of section 25F of the Act and therefore void, with the result that it directed the reinstatement of all the petitioners with back wages from the date of retrenchments less the amount drawn towards one month salary in 'lieu' of notice or compensation or for services rendered subsequent to retrenchment. (It may be noted that soon after the said retrenchment, the society had to and did employ some of the very retrenched persons for carrying on its business.)