Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Being aggrieved by the same, one Mr.K.Neelakandan and 9 others filed W.P.No.7508/1985 before this Court and by an order, dated 8.11.95, this Court remanded the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Against which, the 2nd Respondent and William Goodacre & Sons Ltd., filed, two separate appeals in W.A.Nos.I055/97 and 225/96 and a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment, dated 11.9.1997, allowed the appeals and confirmed the termination of the workers, w.e.f. 4.10.1982.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after the expiry of the lease period of 5 years, in the year 1987, the 2nd Respondent got back the possession of the factory and started functioning. Coming to know of the same, the Petitioners and other workers approached the 2nd Respondent and orally requested the Company to give them employment, as per 25-H of the I.D. Act, as they were entitled to claim re-employment under that Section. As their request was not complied with, they raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the I.D. Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Nagercoil and the same ended in failure, by submitting a failure report, dated 12.10.99 and therefore, the petitioners have filed individual Industrial Disputes in I.D.Nos.55 to 89 of 2000 under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli, 1st Respondent, claiming re- employment, as per Section 25H of the I.D. Act.

24. The said decision, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that the expression 'as if' has limited application and has been employed only for the purpose of computation of quantum of compensation and takes within its purview a case where retrenchment as contained in Section 2(oo) of the 1947 Act has taken place within the meaning of Section 25F and not in a case tailing under Sections 25FF or 25FFF thereof.

25. Once it is held that Section 25F will have no application in a case of transfer of an undertaking or closure thereof as contemplated in Section 25F and 25FFF of the 1947 Act, the logical corollary would be that in such an event Section 25H will have no application.

"9. Shri Sinha submitted that as soon as transfer had been effected under Section 25FF of the Act all the employees became entitled to claim compensation and thus those who had been paid such compensation will not be entitled to claim reemployment under Section 25H of the Act as the same would result in double benefit in the form of payment of compensation and immediate re-employment and, therefore, fair justice means that such workmen will not be entitled to such conferment of double benefit. It is no doubt true that this argument sounds good, but there has been no retrenchment as contemplated under Section 25FF of the Act in the present case. The workmen in question have been retrenched long before the Colliery was taken over the respondents and, therefore, the principles stated in Anakapalle Coop. Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. [AIR 1963 SC 1489 = 1962 (II) LLJ 621], in this regard cannot be applied at all. The workmen had been paid compensation only under Section 25F and not under Section 25FF of the Act on transfer of the Colliery to the present management. That case has not been pleaded or established. Hence, we do not think that the line upon which the High Court has proceeded is correct. The order made by the High Court deserves to be set aside and the award made by the Tribunal will have to be restored."

32. The said decision, therefore, in stead of advancing the case of the Respondents runs counter thereto inasmuch as in the said decision it has been categorically held that Section 25H would come into play only when a retrenchment in terms of Section 25F was made but the said provision would not come into play in a case attracting Section 25FF of the 1947 Act. Unfortunately, before the said Bench of this Court even the amended provisions of Section 17 of the 1972 Act were not brought to its notice.