LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.288 OF 1999

Industrial dispute concerning retrenchment of employees.

Employees sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service initially; in Letters Patent Appeal, they sought reinstatement; alternatively, adequate compensation for illegal retrenchment.

Respondent company retrenched 93 employees in 1983 due to financial difficulties. The union challenged the retrenchment; the Industrial Tribunal upheld it. Employees filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the award, and subsequently a Letters Patent Appeal and another writ petition against the order and award on remand.

Industrial Tribunal, Pune, Award dated 27 March 1987 in Reference (IT) No. 23 of 1984 dismissed the reference, held retrenchment justified. Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2801 of 1988 dated 15 October 1998 held violation of Section 25-F but upheld retrenchment as bona fide, remanded for compensation. On remand, Industrial Tribunal Award dated 3 May 2000 granted lay off compensation and 12 months' wages in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Letters Patent Appeal No. 288 of 1999 against Single Judge's order; Writ Petition No. 4125 of 2003 against remission award.

Whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge passed in a writ petition filed exclusively under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in remanding the matter for compensation instead of granting reinstatement with full back wages. Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award on remand granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement is adequate and proper.

Appellants: The writ petition, though labelled as under Article 227, in substance invoked Article 226 jurisdiction as it sought certiorari and raised grounds of error apparent on the face of record; therefore, LPA is maintainable. Further, since Section 25-F was violated, retrenchment was void ab initio and reinstatement with full back wages should have been granted. Respondent: The writ petition was filed only under Article 227, and the Single Judge's order passed in revisional jurisdiction, so no LPA under Clause 15 lies. Additionally, retrenchment was bona fide and the award of compensation is just; 34 employees have accepted it.

The Tribunal dismissed the said Reference by holding amongst others that there were no violations of any law and that the retrenchment was neither mala fide nor unjustified. (Para 2) He, therefore, held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 3) It is contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that inasmuch as Writ Petition No.2801 of 1988 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal is not available against any such revisional order. (Para 10)

On 28 April 1983, respondent no.1 company laid off some employees. On 20 November 1983, it retrenched 93 employees. The Vacuum Plant Kamgar Sanghatana challenged the retrenchment, leading to Reference (IT) No.23 of 1984 before the Industrial Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal's Award dated 27 March 1987 dismissed the reference, finding no violations and holding retrenchment neither mala fide nor unjustified. The union filed Writ Petition No.2801 of 1988 under Article 227 of the Constitution. During the petition, A.G. Dhore and others substituted as petitioners. On 15 October 1998, a learned Single Judge held that there was violation of Section 25-F due to illegal deduction of lay off compensation, but accepted retrenchment as bona fide, refused reinstatement, and remanded the reference to the Tribunal for determination of proper compensation/back wages. Against this order, the appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal No.288 of 1999. On 3 November 1999, a Division Bench admitted the appeal, kept the issue of maintainability open, and declined to stay the remand proceedings. The Industrial Tribunal proceeded on remand and gave its Award on 3 May 2000, directing payment of lay off compensation and 12 months' wages in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages. Some employees accepted the award in full settlement. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No.4125 of 2003 challenging the remission award. The writ petition was admitted and, by order dated 25 November 2004, was directed to be heard along with the LPA. Both matters were heard together and judgment was reserved on 23 December 2004 and pronounced on 28 April 2005.

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25-F, Section 25-H
• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
• Letters Patent (Bombay High Court): Clause 15