WORKMEN OF ROHTAS INDUSTRIESLTD Vs. H K CHOUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, the workmen of Rohtas Industries Ltd. represented by Rohtas Industries Staff Union, have obtained the rule from the High Court against the respondents to show cause why the award made in Reference No. 14 of 1962 by respondent No. 1. Shri H.K. Chaudhuri, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, be not called up and quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Manage ment of Rohtas Industries Ltd.

(2.) ON the 30th of June, 1962, respondent No. 2 issued notices to 15 persons, doctors, hakim, dressers, ward boys, sweepers, sweeperess, dais and nurses, seeking to retrench them on the ground mentioned in the notice, a copy of which is annexure A to the writ application. Upon this, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred by a notification (a copy of which is annexure B to the application) of the State Government dated 28th July, 1962, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, which by its award dated the 31st of August, 1963, A copy of which is annexure C to the writ application, has answered the two questions, referred to it for adjudication, against the workmen.

(3.) THE case of the Management before the tribunal was that medical relief to the workmen was a State responsibility and not of the employer. After the passing of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (Central Act XXXIV of 1948) hereinafter called the Act, an employees State Insurance Corporation was established with an Employees Insurance Fund. Towards the beginning of 1960, the Employees State Insurance Scheme was introduced at Dalmianagar, and the contribution of Rohtas Industries Ltd. to the Insurance Fund amounted to Rs. 2,52,000/- and odd per year. About 83 per cent of the workmen of the Company recovered by the Scheme. Hence, justification for maintaining a medical staff at the scale at which it was being maintained by the company had disappeared and much of it had become surplus. THE Company, therefore, decided to retrench the 15 persons concerned in the dispute and in bona fide exercise of its right to curtail the surplus establishment served a notice of retrenchment, observing the rule of "last come, first go" THE company asserted that the retrenchment sought to be effected is fully justified and bona fide and is at present on a very small scale, namely, in respect of only 15 employees out of a total strength of 50 employees of the hospital (excluding the Ayurvedic section). THE remaining staff even after retrenchment would be much more than the medical need of the remaining 17 per cent, of the employees and further retrenchment of the medical staff would take place in due course in future. THE medical facilities provided to the workmen are no part of their service conditions, and they have no right to object to this curtailment. THE further case of the Management before the Tribunal has been that the 3 medical officers, namely, two doctors and the hakim are not workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act of in any event no industrial dispute could be raised by the Union on their behalf on their retrenchment.