9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1430 - SUPREME COURTExtract: .......ii) The appellants will, thereafter, file a compliance report in the Labour Court at Sangli, with a copy thereof to the Registry of this Court. (ix) Order accordingly. (x) Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court, Sangli. 30. Both the appeals and all the I.As. moved therein stand disposed off as above, with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Applicability of Section 25FF vs Section 25N of the I.D. Act. 3. Entitlement to reinstatement and back wages. 4. Consistency of relief with previous judgments involving similarly situated workmen. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of Retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The respondents challenged the termination of 256 workmen by the Labour Court, Sangli, which was upheld by a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Labour Court found the termination illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25F of the I.D. Act, as adequate statutory notice was not given. The Single Judge also held that the lift irrigation schemes were "Industrial Establishments" under the I.D. Act, and thus, the retrenchment was illegal for not complying with Section 25N. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 25FF vs Section 25N of the I.D. Act The appellants argued that the termination was due to the transfer of the lift irrigation schemes to a sugar factory, invoking Section 25FF, which pertains to the transfer of undertakings. The Supreme Court noted that the transfer of these schemes constituted a transfer of an undertaking, and thus Section 25FF applied. However, the appellants failed to absorb the workmen in other activities of the irrigation department or ensure their employment with the new employer. Issue 3: Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Wages The Single Judge had ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages, which was challenged by the appellants. The Supreme Court, considering the long duration of the case and the fact that many workmen had reached superannuation, held that reinstatement was not feasible. Instead, the workmen were entitled to continuity of service, 25% back wages, and retirement benefits on par with another group of 10 workmen who had received similar relief. Issue 4: Consistency of Relief with Previous Judgments Involving Similarly Situated Workmen The respondents pointed out that another set of 10 workmen from the same schemes had been awarded reinstatement with 25% back wages, and the appellants' challenge to this award had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the need for consistency and fairness, ruling that the 163 workmen should receive similar relief to avoid contradictory orders. Final Order: 1. The 163 workmen will be categorized into those who have reached superannuation, those yet to reach it, and those who have expired. 2. Benefits will be provided until the date of superannuation, the date of this judgment, or the date of expiry, as applicable. 3. All workmen will receive 25% back wages in addition to last drawn wages under Section 17B of the I.D. Act. 4. Retirement benefits will be aligned with those given to the other group of 10 workmen. 5. Payments to be made within three months, with no order for reinstatement. 6. Compliance report to be filed in the Labour Court at Sangli. Both appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
