Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iii) Clause 3 of the settlement specifically provided Social Security and Resettlement Package in the form of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was availed of by a substantial number of workmen and it was an error of law to hold that this amounted to retrenchment. Reliance has been placed on the definition of the word "retrenchment" appearing in section 2(OO) of the I.D. Act which specifically excludes voluntary retirement of the workman.

12. Shri Singhvi, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent has opposed the said contentions and has raised a contention which has not been raised in the Court below namely that a settlement as understood by Clause (p) of section 2 of the I.D. Act must necessarily be with the Union, since the present controversy is not concerning either discharge, dismissal. retrenchment or termination of service of a workman, but concerns a lockout. It is only where the dispute relates to either discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the service of an individual workman that the dispute may be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2-A of the Act. Having regard to the spirit of collective bargaining and the scheme of the provisions of the I.D. Act, it is contended that individual settlements arrived at between the petitioner and the workmen cannot detract from the obligation of the petitioner to comply with the provisions of section 9-A of the Act. Shri Singhvi contended that the settlement contemplated by Clause (a) of the proviso to section 9-A of the Act must be a settlement within the meaning of section 2(p) of the Act and not individual settlements that were reached between the petitioner and the workmen. The fact that all the workmen including the office bearers of the Union had entered into the said individual settlements was irrelevant for deciding the question of applicability of section 9-A of the Act.

a) meeting the business exigencies (including changing market requirements) with regard to existing and new products etc.

b) introduction of new products/processes/technologies, computerisation & improved systems of work etc.

c) improvements in quality, manufacturing cost, productivity etc. The management on its part, assures that re-deployment will not lead to retrenchment".

Similarly, clause 3 of the settlement reads as under :-

"3. Social Security, & Resgttlement Package At the suggestion of the Government of Maharashtra, the Company agrees to re-introduce the Social Security & Resettlement Package, which has already been availed of by approximately 550 workmen on a purely voluntary basis for a further period of six months".

46. The third and last contention of Shri Rele is that clause 3 of the settlement specifically provided for social security and resettlement package in the form of voluntary retirement benefit which has been availed of by a substantial number of workmen as many as 1000 and, therefore, it was an error of law to hold that there was any retrenchment. Reliance has been placed on the definition of "retrenchment" appearing in section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act which specifically excludes voluntary retirement.

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health."

Clause 3 of the settlement reads as under :

"3. Social Security & Resettlement Package. At the suggestion of the Government of Maharashtra, the Company agrees to re-introduce the Social Security & Resettlement Package, which has already been availed of by approximately 550 workmen on a purely voluntary basis for a further period of six months."

47. Evidence of D'Costa, General Secretary of the Union and of R.K. Lal, Factory Manager shows that it was as a result of lifting of the lockout on 22nd June, 1989 when the workmen were redeployed, that a substantial number of them were rendered surplus. 1000 workmen accepted voluntary retirement benefits and excluding these 1000 workmen, another 500 workmen were rendered surplus. Evidence of R.K. Lal further shows that skilled workers were given unskilled job. New factories were opened at Khamgaon, Yaotmal, Sumarpur and Orai. Fresh workmen at Khamgaon were 300, at Yaotmal, 130, at Sumarpur, 160 and at Orai 250 at lesser wages. It is on the basis of this evidence that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the surplus workmen have been removed by the petitioner though not by way of retrenchment but by way of introducing voluntary retirement scheme. What the workmen had consented in terms of clause 2 was only right of the company to redeploy them for one of the 3 purposes mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause 2. It is difficult to read in clause 2 any consent on the part of the workmen to adversely change any condition of service without complying with the mandate of section 9-A of I.D. Act. Assuming that in exercise of the right under Clause 2 of the settlement, the company redeployed the workmen for any of the three purposes namely (a) meeting the business exigencies (including changing market requirements) with regard to existing and new products etc. (b) introduction of new products/processes/ technoligies, computerisation and improved systems of work etc. and (c) improvements in quality, manufacturing cost, productivity etc. If such a change adversely affected the workmen, in my view, compliance with the provisions of section 9-A was absolutely essential. That not having been done, it is not possible to accept Shri Rele's contention that there was no retrenchment in view of clause 3 of the settlement.