Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves four writ petitions filed by two companies, M/s. Kundil Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kundil Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., challenging separate awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Goa, in reference cases concerning termination of workmen. The workmen were represented by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. The petitioners contended that the workmen had abandoned service voluntarily and that the termination was not illegal. The Tribunal, however, found that the petitioners had terminated the services of the workmen without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates payment of retrenchment compensation and notice or wages in lieu thereof. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the findings of the Tribunal were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the petitioners failed to prove voluntary abandonment and that the termination was illegal. The court also held that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion under Section 11A of the Act in granting reinstatement with back wages. Consequently, all four writ petitions were dismissed, and the awards of the Industrial Tribunal were upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Termination of Service - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Validity of Termination - The petitioners terminated the services of workmen without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F, i.e., without payment of retrenchment compensation and without giving one month's notice or wages in lieu thereof. The Industrial Tribunal held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court upheld the awards, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement with Back Wages - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Discretion of Tribunal - The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, exercised its discretion under Section 11A to grant reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court held that the discretion was judicially exercised and not arbitrary, and therefore no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10) C) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference of Individual Disputes - The workmen raised individual disputes which were referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c). The Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of workmen by the petitioners was legal and valid, and whether the Industrial Tribunal's awards directing reinstatement with back wages are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
All four writ petitions are dismissed. The awards of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement with full back wages are upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of workmen without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is illegal
- Reinstatement with back wages is proper remedy for illegal termination
- Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate individual disputes referred under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Writ Court will not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence
