BALDEV SINGH Vs. INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was an employee of a company known as Simon Carves (India) Limited and was engaged as a Maintenance Engineer for maintaining an aircraft of the employer. In 1962 the first respondent purchased an aircraft for transport of its officers from one place to another in India. The aircraft of the first respondent was kept at Hanger No. 7 at Dum Dum Airport, which was hired by Simon Carves (India) Limited, who entered into an agreement with the first respondent for maintenance of the latter's aircraft. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Titaghur) also had an aircraft which was kept in Hanger No. 10, which was hired by Bird and Co. Private Limited, but was made available to Titaghur for keeping the latter's aircraft there.

(2.) AN agreement was entered into between Titaghur, Simon Carves and the first respondent to the effect that from June 1, 1962, the first respondent would undertake the maintenance of its own aircraft, as well as the aircraft of Simon Carves and Titaghur and that from July 1, 1962, the first respondent and the said two other companies would constitute a Syndicate for that purpose. It was also agreed that all three aircrafts would be kept at Hanger No. 10, and that the first respondent would take over from Simon Carves the services of the appellant as Maintenance Engineer as well as the crew of mechanics employed by Simon Carve. It. was further agreed that the three members of the Syndicate would share the expenses of maintenance of aircraft.

(3.) UNDER the terms of the agreement the first respondent became responsible for the maintenance of the aircrafts of all the three members of the Syndicate, and for this purpose the first respondent employed the appellant and the maintenance crew of seven persons, who were previously the employees of Simon Carves. Later on Simon Carves ceased to be a member of the Syndicate, land in March 1964 the first respondent and Titaghur agreed with another company known as Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd. , that this company would become a member of the Syndicate, and that the first respondent would also maintain its aircraft at Hanger No. 10. The first respondent continued to be in charge of maintenance of the aircraft on behalf of the Syndicate, until September 6, 1966, when the management of the Syndicate for maintenance of aircraft was transferred to Titaghur. According to the first respondent since it was no longer carrying on the undertaking of the maintenance of the aircraft, the employment of the appellant was terminated by a notice dated September 20, 1966, terminating the appellant's service from May 1, 1967, in terms of Clause 11 (c) of the contract of employment of the appellant. Titaghur offered employment to 10 members of the maintenance crew, who however did not accept the offer of employment inside by Titaghur. According to the appellant again as it was no longer carrying on its undertaking of maintenance of aircraft, the employment of the 10 members of the crew was also terminated by a letter dated October 11, 1966, with one month's pay in her of notice and compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union with regard to the termination of the employment of the 10 crew members, and the State Government by an order of reference dated November 18, 1966, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Third Industrial Tribunal. It is to be noticed that a Junior Engineer named Kulwant singh as offered alternative employment at the Head Office of the first respondent and this offer was accented by the said Kulwant Singh. The transfer of Kulwant Singh from Hanger No. 10 to the Head Office of the respondent was also one of the disputes referred by the State Government to the Tribunal. The issues before the Tribunal were whether the retrenchment of the members of the maintenance crew was justified, and whether the transfer of Kulwant Singh from Hanger No. 10 to the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 was justified. The Tribunal by its award held that since the first respondent was not looking after the maintenance of the aircraft, no reinstatement could be ordered but it was held that the first respondent should pay the said ten crew members compensation equal to the wages they would have drawn from October 11, 1966, to the date of the award. No relief was granted to the said Kulwant Singh. This award was the subject-matter of challenge in a writ petition in Matter No. 368 of 1968, to which I will refer later.