MOHAMMAD YOUSUF Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No. 15/72 by which the Tribunal rejected the claim of the workmen that they are entitled to be absorbed in the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd , (for short HAL Hyd). Division with protection of emoluments. The petitioners, who are 24 in number, were employed in the Bangalore Division of HAL, at one of its detachments at Begumpet. The HAL was employing workmen for the purpose of servicing and for maintenance of aircraft of the Indian Air Force at various centres and was having detachment of its employees at these centres, Begumpet was one such centre. At the Begumpet centre there were three categories of employees, viz. '(1) those who were sent on deputation from Bangalore to Begumpet detachment, (2) those that were transferred to Begumpet ;and (3) persons locally recruited. The petitioners belong to the second and third categories of employees. In the year 1968 there was a move to close down these centres of the HAL consequent upon the decision of the Air Force to have their aircraft serviced by Defence personnel themselves. In the early part of the year 1969 the Chairman of the HAL held a meeting of the representatives of the Unions and workers and arrived at an understanding that options would be given to the employees in these two centres who had to be retrenched consequent upon the closure of the centres, to be absorbed. depending upon their qualifications in one of the divisions of HAL. On 26-10-1070 the petitioners were given option to be absorbed in one of the Divisions of HAL and were required to sign option forms issued to them. Simultaneously, they were given one month's notice intimating that they would be retrenched with effect from 31-12-1970. It is the petitioners' case that notwithstanding this notice, they were continued in service till 15th January 1971 and the HAL held out that they would be absorbed in Hyderabad Division. On 15th January 1971 they were called to the Begurnpet Base and were asked to take retrenchment compensation with a promise that they would be absorbed in equivalent posts in Hyderabad Division. The petitioners accepted the compensation and later reported at Hyderabad Division. While some of those that were retrenched from the Begumpet centre were absorbed in the Hyderabad Division, the petitioners were retrenched on the ground that they did not possess the requisite educational qualifications. This action of the company, according to them, is contrary to law and also to the clear understanding reached between the workmen and the management of HAL. The petitioners therefore, raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the tribunal by the Government. The questions referred to the Tribunal were, (1) whether the refusal of the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Hyderabad Division, to absorb the following workmen with protection of emoluments effected as a result of the closure of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Begumpet Detachment, is justified : (1) Sri B. Pandu, (2) Mohd. Ismail, (3) Sri M. Padma Rao, (4) Sri A. K. Harry, (5) Sri R. Gansalvas. (6) Sri I. R. K. S. Rao, (7) Sri M. Bhaskar and (8) Sri. G.T. Vijaya Raghavan.

(2.) If not, to what relief are they entitled ? (2) Whether the refusal of the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Hyderabad Division to protect the emoluments as on the date of retrenchment by the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Begumpet Detachment of the following workmen is justified ? (1) Sri Mohd. Yousuf, (2) Sri A Govinda Rao, (3) Sri M.A. Waheed, (4) Sri N.S. Pattabhiram, (5) Sri M.J. De Costa. (6) Sri P. Lingaiah. (7) Sri B. Madhav, (8) Sri K. Machander, (9) Sri Kasbinath Joshi, (10) Sri Syed Nazeer Ahmed, (11) Sri S. Yadagiri, (12) Sri P. Shanmugham, (13) Sri M.A. Nazeer, (14) Sri D. Souza (15) Sri B. Gopal and (16) Sri H. Sudarshan. If not, to what relief are they entitled ? Upon the voluminous evidence, oral and documentary, adduced before the Industrial Tribunal, it found that the closure of the Begumpet Detachment and the retrenchment of the workmen was valid, that the petitioners had no right to be absorbed in Hyderabad Division of HAL., that there was no discrimination in the matter of absorption of retrenched workmen and that the option exercised by the petitioners did not vest any right in the petitioners to be appointed or absorbed in HAL, Hyderabad Division. The basis for coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to be absorbed in the Hyderabad Division HAL, was the finding arrived at by the tribunal that the various units of HAL at different places did not constitute 'one Establishment' so as to apply the principle of 'first come last go' enunciated in Section 25 (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In view of this finding the tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners.

(3.) In this writ petition, Mr. Panduranga Rao learned counsel for the petitioners, while not disputing that the closure of the Begumpet Centre was justified, contended that the HAL., with all its units at various places constituted 'one Establishment' within the meaning of the Act and, consequently, in the matter of retrenchment the petitioners could not be retrenched while their juniors were not retrenched. He also contended that the option exercised by the workmen on the offer made the management itself constituted a binding contract between the employer and the employees and consequently, the management was bound to absorb them in the Hyderadad Division of the HAL. It was urged that the Industrial Tribunal can, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, make a new contract between the parties and enforce it by way of an award on a reference made to it under section 10 of the Act.