1964 (4) TMI 125 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order made on 27th May 1961 under Section 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act.
2. Compliance with Section 25F(b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. Compliance with Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.
4. Validity of the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the reorganization order in light of Section 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order made on 27th May 1961 under Section 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act:
The High Court rejected the contention that the order made on 27th May 1961 violated the provisions of Section 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act. This decision was not challenged before the Supreme Court, and thus, the Court did not examine the correctness of this conclusion. The appeal was disposed of based on the assumption that the High Court's decision on this point was correct.

2. Compliance with Section 25F(b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act:
The High Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the Government's action in abolishing posts and terminating services of employees contravened Section 25F(b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This decision was not questioned before the Supreme Court, and the Court assumed the correctness of the High Court's decision on this point.

3. Compliance with Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947:
The High Court held that the Government's action in issuing notices of termination of services on abolition of posts did not comply with the provisions of Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act and was accordingly invalid. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. The Supreme Court opined that the term "reduction in the number of persons employed" as mentioned in Item 1 of Schedule II of the Act does not cover the abolition of all posts. The Court stated that the word "reduction" implies that something must remain after the reduction, and the abolition of all posts does not fit this definition. Therefore, the Government was not required to follow the procedure mentioned in Section 31, and the High Court's order quashing the abolition of posts and the notices of termination could not be sustained.

4. Validity of the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the reorganization order in light of Section 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act:
The High Court held that the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the order was bad in law as it conflicted with Section 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that there had been no specific assertion of any variation to the disadvantage of any workman, only an apprehension of potential future changes. Since no actual change had occurred and there was no immediate likelihood of such a change, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to examine the validity of the proviso at that time. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision on the proviso and left the question open for future determination if necessary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the Government resolution of 29th May 1961, and the notices of termination. The Supreme Court also set aside the High Court's direction that no action should be taken under the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the order. No order as to costs was made.