1962 (10) TMI 76 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the reference as an industrial dispute.
2. Successor-in-interest status of the appellant.
3. Re-employment of the workmen by the appellant.
4. Applicability of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Applicability of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Competency of the Reference as an Industrial Dispute:
The appellant argued that the dispute was not an industrial dispute because the Thummapala Sugar Workers Union, which sponsored the demand, was not a representative union. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence, held that the sponsoring union was legally competent to raise the industrial dispute and rejected the appellant's contention about the invalidity of the reference.

2. Successor-in-Interest Status of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that it was not a successor-in-interest of the Company, and thus, the claim for re-employment was not sustainable. The Tribunal held that the appellant was a successor-in-interest of the Company, considering factors such as the continuity of business without an appreciable break, the same place of business, and the same type of business being carried on. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion, emphasizing that the purchaser's exclusion of certain assets did not negate its status as a successor-in-interest.

3. Re-Employment of the Workmen by the Appellant:
The Tribunal ordered the appellant to re-employ the permanent and seasonal employees of the Company who were not absorbed, guaranteeing them continuity of service and partial back wages. The appellant argued that it had already employed a full complement of labor force needed. The Supreme Court, however, held that the claim for re-employment could not be sustained under the provisions of Section 25-FF, which only entitles employees to compensation and not re-employment.

4. Applicability of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Section 25-FF was analyzed to determine its scope and effect. The Supreme Court held that the section provides for compensation to employees upon the transfer of ownership or management of an undertaking, treating the termination of their services as if it were retrenchment. The proviso to Section 25-FF states that no compensation is payable if the service of the workman is uninterrupted, the terms and conditions of service are not less favorable, and the new employer is legally liable to pay compensation in the event of retrenchment. The Court concluded that the employees of the transferred concern are entitled to compensation and not re-employment.

5. Applicability of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The respondents argued that Section 25-H, which deals with re-employment of retrenched workmen, should apply. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 25-FF specifically addresses the termination of services due to the transfer of ownership or management and provides for compensation, not re-employment. The Court emphasized that the principles of fair play and social justice do not justify re-employment in addition to compensation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's award, holding that the appellant was not obligated to re-employ the workmen but was only required to pay compensation as per Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court emphasized that the claim for re-employment was not sustainable under the Act's provisions, and the general principles of social justice did not support such a claim.