Workmen Sudder Workshop v. Management (Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd.)

966 A WORKMEN OF SUDDER WORKSHOP OF JOREHAUT TEA CO. LTD. _v._ _J_ ITS MANAGEMENT AND VICE-VERSA 8 c E F G H Dismissing both the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The plea that the amount paid by way of retrenchment compensation envisaged in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, not having been computed as per the revised pay scales as per the Wage Boe.rd Award, fell short of what was legally due and hence there was non-compliance is not tenable because before the Tribunal this contention was neither pleaded nor proved·. There was \no hint of it in the Award. Jn the High Court this new plea based on the facts was not permitted. Further the Wage Boards' .A ward was subsequent ro the retrenchment although retroactively applied and the. \vorkmen had accepted the retrenchnient compensation on the wages prevalent at the time of the retrenchment. In the absence of any basis for this new plea Supreme Court cannor reopen cm ancient matter of 1966. But the 16 Work· men, being admittedly eligible for the Wage Board scale, would be paid the difference for the period between 1-4-66 to 5-11-66. [969 A-BJ 2. Se<:tion 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act postulates that ordinarily the 'last come, first g~ will be the methodology of retrenchment. Of course, _it_ is not an inflexible rule and extra-ordinary situations may justify variations. There must be valid reason for this decision, and, obviously, the burden is on the Management to substantiate the special ground for depsrture from the rule. Surely, _valid and justifiable reasons are_ _for the management to make_ _our,_ and if made out, s. 25G will be vindicated and not violated, varying the ordinary rule of 'last come first go.' There is none made out here, nor even a1leged, except the only plea that t'he retrenchment was done in compliance _May_ 1, 1980 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA RllDDY, JJ.] _New_ _Pica-Article_ 136 _of "the_ _Cons1itution-Supre1ne l'ourt cannot accept_ .,,. _new_ _plea_ _not taken_ _earlier._ _lndustri/ll Diputes Act, Sections_ 25F _and_ 25G, _scope_ _of-Back_ _wages_ _pay-_ _nJent_ _of._ The Management Tea Co. Ltd. appellant in C. A. 1538/71 retrenched on. November _5,_ 1966, 23 workmen, 16 of whom were paid retrenchment compen sation allegedly in term. of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act based on wages obtaining prior to Wage Board Award, which came into force on 1-4~66 retroactively and in the order of 'last come, first go', while the services of other seven were terminated, although on payment of retrenchment com~ pensation, allegedly in breach of Section 25G of the Act, i.e. out of turn. The dispute that was raised was decided by the Tribunal which upheld the validly of the retrenchment of the 16, but set aside the termination of the other seven. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's Award and hence the appeals both by the workmen and the management after obtaining special leave. _(_ _J_ WORKMEN SUDDER WORKSHOP _v._ MANAGEMENT _(Krishna_ _Iyer,_ J.)957 with s. 25G _grade-wise._ Absence of mala fides by itself is no absolution from A the rule in s.25G. Affirmatively, some valid and justifiable grounds must be proved by the Management to be exonerated from the 'last come first gc>' prin· ciple. The aboye rule can be applied _category_ _wise._ That is to say tbose who fell in the same category shall suffer retrenchment only in accordance with !be principle of last come first go. [969 E, H, 970 A, B, 0-FJ _I_ .. ###, I _'t_ ###### **_T_** i. # I ""' _Ml s._ _Om Oil_ & _Oil_ _Seeds_ _Exchange Ltd.,_ _Delhi_ v. _Their_ _Workmen,_ [1966] Suppl. S.C.R. 74, followed. 3. Grading for purposes of scales of pay and like considerations will no! **create** **new** **categorisation.** **..ft** **is** **a·** **confusion** **or** **unwarranted** **circumvention** **to** contend that within the seme category if grades for scales of pay, based on length of service etc., are evolved, that process amounts to creation of seporate categories. In the instant case, the senioriiy List is the same which is a tell· ing circumstance to show that they fell in the same category. [971 C-E] 4. Supreme eoUrt cannot sympathise with a party who gambles in litigation to put off the evil day and when that day arrives prays to be **saved from** **his** **own gamble.** **The** **Award** **had given convincing reasons for** reinstatement and even reduced the back wages to half. Still, the workmen **were dragged** **to** **the** **High** **Court** **and,** **worse, when worsted there, were driven** from Assam to Delhi to defend their pittance. The logistics of litigation for **indipt** **work.men** **is** **a** **burden** **the** **management** **tried** **to** **use** **by** **a covert black-** mail throogh the judicial process. Misplaced sympathy is a mirage justice. [971 G-H, 972 A-Bl CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1303 of 1972 and 1538 of 1971. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orders dated 13-4-1971 Of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 368/68 and 174/68. **B** c **D** _**E**_ _M. N. Phadke_ and _S._ _N._ _Choudhary_ for the appellant in CA. No. 1538 and Respondent in CA No. 1303172. **F** _P._ _R._ _Mridul_ and _K._ _P._ _Gupta_ for Respondent No. 1 in CA 1538 and Appellant in CA No. 1303/72. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. These two appeals, turning on the validity of the retrenchment of 23 workmen way back in 1966, arp amenable to common dispo1al. Mr. Phadke, appearing for the Management, argued straight to the point; so did Shri Mridul, with the result that we could get the hang of the case without much wrestling with time or getting paper-logged. Since, in substance, we are inclined to leave undisturbed the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, affirmed, as it were, by the High Court, both these appeals will be given short shrift with brief reasons. **G** **H** A B c D E F B 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 s.c.R. The facts, to the extent necessary to appreciate the iss~es canvas-. sect, are brief. The Management of a tea plantation by name Jorehaut Tea Co., Ltd., retrenched 23 workmen, 16 of. whom were paid retrenchment compensation allegedly in terms of s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the Act) and in the order of 'last come, first go', while the services of the other seven were terminated, although on payment of retrenchment compensatioo, allegedly in breach of s. 25G of the Act, i.e. out of tum. The dispute that was raised was decided b'y the Tribunal which upheld the validity of the retrenchment of the 16 but set aside the termination of the other 7. Consequently it directed their re-instatement with some back wages. The Award granted the following relief: In respect of the workmen, viz., Sri Bhogeswar Saikia Sri Nandeswar Bora, Sri Gunai Bora, Sri Premodhar Sarma, Sri Alimuddin Ahmed, Sri Deven Sarma and Shri Harlal Biswas whose retrenchment has been found to be not justified they are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. These workmen have not come forward to say that they remained unemployed from the date of their retrenchment. In the circumstances of ·the case, I think they may be given wages at half the rate from the date of retrenchment till the date of publication of the award in the Gazette. We may first dispose of the workers' appeal. In all, 23 persons were retrenched. In respect of 16 the rule of 'last come, first go' was applied .. Thus homage was paid to s.25G of the Act. But then, the workmen in their appeal, contended before us that s. 25F bad been breached and, therefore, the termination was bad in law. The Management's case is that, as a fact, all or most of them had been reinstated when fresh vacancies had arisen, although neither party is able to assert with certainty this case of reinstatement. That apart, if there be non-<:ompliance with s.25F, the Jaw is plain that the retrenchment is bad. However, when probed further as to bow s.25F had been violated, Shri Mridul argued that the amount paid by way of retrenchment compensation envisaged in s.25F fell short of what was legally due and hence there was non-<:ompliance. Under more searching interrogation, Shri Mridul stated that the compensation bad been computed on the basis of wages previously paid and in derogation of the Wage Board Award which had been implemented by the Management with effect from 1-4-1966. The retrenchment was on November 5, 1966, i.e. months after April 1, 1966. Therefore, the revised· payscales as per the Wage Board Award should have been adopted in calculating the retrenchment c~mpensation. This spinal flaw rendered ' -~ ... I ## r .. WORKMEN SUDDl!ll. WORKSHOP _v._ MANAGEMENT _(Krishna_ _Iyer,_ _I.)_ 9 6 9 A ... . . I ·.Y \ ·~· •• - -:"~the tender of campensation insufficient and, therefore, the retrenchment itself was invalid. Maybe, there is apparent force in this contention. But Shri Phadke countered it by saying that it was not open to the workmen to spring a surprise on the Management especially when the question was one of fact. He urged that before the Tribunal no Now, we will take up the merits of the Management's appeal which relates to the retrenchment of seven workmen. Admittedly, the rule in s.25G of the Act, which postulates that ordinarily the 'last come, first _gd_ Mll be the methQdology of retrenchment, has not been complied with provided we treat all the workmen in the category as .one group. It makes for better appreciation of the point if we read s. 25G at this stage : Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to . a _particular_ _category_ _of_ _workmen_ in that es!ablishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and ·the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons tt'.1 be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. The key-note thought of the provision, even on ii bare reading, Is evident.. The rule is that the employer shall retrench the wotkman who came last, first, poptJlarly known a8 'last come first go'. Of 3-610SCI/80 F G B plea based on the Wage Board -!\ward was made and it was quite pllssi'llfe that the Management would have adequately met the conten- - B tion if such a plea had been raised. The fact is that before the Tnl>unal the contention pressed before us was neither pleaded nor proved. There is no hint of it in the Award. In the High Court this new plea based on the facts was not permitted. Had there been some foundation laid at least in the written statement of the workmen, we might c have been inclined to expli>re the tenability of the plea, especially because there is no dispute about the. Wage Board Award and the fact that it had been given effect to from 1-4-1966 and the further fact that in the retrenchmlll!t notice the wages were not calculated according to _I_ the Wage Board's Award. It must be remembered, however, that the Wage Board's Award was subsequent to the retrenchment although re D troactively applied and the workmen had accepted the retrenchment compensation on the wages prevalent at the time of the retrenchment. In the absence of any basis for this new plea we are unable to reopen an ancient matter of 1966 and, agreeing with the High Court; dismiss tht appeal. But the 16 workmen, being eligible admittedly for the Wage Board scale, will be paid the difference for the period between E 1-4-1966 to 5-11-1966. · c _I_ D E A B c D It F 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [1980) 3 S.C.R. course it is not an inflexible rule and extra-ordinary situations may justify variations. For instance, a junior recruit who has a special qualification needed by the employer may be retained even though another who is one up is retrenched. There must be a valid reason for tbis deviation, and obviously,, the burden 1s on the Management to substantiate the special ground for departure from the ru!ei. Shri Phadke brought to _oui_ notice the decision in _Ml s_ _Om_ _Oil_ & _Oilseeds J;xchange Ltd., Delhi_ v. _Their Worf<n?en(')_ to make out that it was not a universal principle which could not . be departed from by the Management that the last should go first. The Management had a discretion provided it acted _bona_ _fide,_ and on good grounds. Shah, J. in that very ruling, while agreeing that a breach of the rule could not be assumed as prompted by _ma1a_ _fides_ or induced bY unfair labour practice merely because of a departure or deviation, · further observed· that the Tribunal had to determine in each case whether the Management had acted fairly and not. with ulterior motive. The crucial consideration next mentioned by the learned Judge is . ' ' that the Management's decision to depart from the nde must be for _valid and justifiable reasons,_ in which case "the senior employee may be retrenched before his junior in employment.'' Surely, _valid_ _and_ _justifiable_ r~asons _are_ _for_ _the Management to make_ _out,_ and if made out, s. 25G will be vindicated and not violated. Indeed, that very decision stresses the necessity for valid and good ground for varying the ordinary rule of 'last come first go'. There is none made out here, nor even alleged, ex~t the only plea that the retrenchment was done in compliance with s. 25G grade-wise. Absence of _mala fides_ by itself is no absolution from' the rule in s. 2SG. Affirmatively, · some valid a!Jd justifiable grounds must, be proved by the Management to be exonerated from the 'last come first go' prim;iple. It must be remembered that the above provision which we have quoted insists on the rule being applied _category-wise._ That is to say, those who fall in the same category shall suffer retrenchment only in accoroance with the principle of last come first go. The short pmnt raised is tha~ the seven workmen are not in the same _cate-_ _gory._ The finding of· the Tribunal, concurred in by the High Court is that they fell in the same category. We quote the award : "It will be seen that when there is no trade test or anything to mark efficiency, there is no basis for placing the workmen in different grade~ and when all the workmen o!I' the same category are to do the same work inasmuch as by the management's own evidence there is no gradewisel allo (1) (1966) Supp. SCR. 74. .. . I _J_ ·-r .. WORKMEN SUDDER WORKSHOP _v._ MANAGEMENT _(Krishna Iyer,_ _!.)_ 971 cation of duty within the same category. Although in the e.vJdence the Management wanted to justify their departure from the principle of 'last come first go' there is nothing to show that such a reason was recorded for deviating from the principle. In the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the management's selection of persons to be retrenched leaving the juniormost in. some category was justified and the reason now adduced for deviating from the principle cannot be accepted in the absence of the reason being not recorded at. the time of retrenchment. Further 11 will be also noticed that although there is classification of workmen into grades (?) within the cat.egory, there is nothing to distinguish one workman of one grade from another workman of another Grade inasmuch as there is no allocation of duties amongst the workmen of different Grades in the category." The seniority list is the same, which is a telling circumstance to show that they fell in the same category. Grading for purposes of scales of pay and like considerations will not create new categorisation. It JS a confusion or unwarranted circumvention to contend that within the same category if grades for scales of pay, based on length of service etc., are evolved, that process amounts to creation of separate categories. This fallacy has been rightly negatived by a detai!lld discussion in the Award. The High Court has a voided the pitfall and we decline to accept the submission. The result is that the Award must hold good in regard to the illegally retrenched seven workmen. What remains to be considered is the last submis~ion of Shri Phadke that the engineering establishment wherein these seven work men· are to be reinstated is no longer in existence. Further, he• pleads that on account of long lapse of time on account of the pendency of the appeal in this Court the compensation payable by way of full wages may amount to a huge sum disproportiom1te to the deviance from the law. He, therefore, pleads for moulding the relief Jes~ harshly . We cannot sympathise with a party who gambles in litigation to put off the evil day and when that day' arrives prays to be saved from his own gamble. The Award had given convincing reasons for reinstatement and even reduced the back wages to half. Still, the1 work A B c D E F G • -~ :\ men were dragged to the High Court and, worse, when worsted there, were driven from Assam to Delhi to defend their pittance. the B logistics of litigation for indigent workmen is a burden the Manaoement trie.d to nse by a covert blackmail through the judicial proce"s.~. 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980]" 3 S.C.R. A Misplaced sympathy is mirage justice. We cannot agree. Even so, we take note of the inordinate delay due to long pendency which is part of the pathology of processual justice in the Supreme Court. So we direct that half the back wages between the \]ate of retrenchment and the publication of the Award shall be paid, as directed in the Award itself. For the post-Award period, full wages )Vill be paid until the High Court's judgment on 13-4-71 and thereafter 75% of the wages will be paid until 30-4-1980. " ~ " #### • ,. . Counsel contends that the Workshop is not in existence now and reinstatement is physically impossible. Sri Mridul, for the workmen, states that a just solution by the court in the given (circumstances 1s _e_ acceptable. We direct that, in lieu of reinstatement, one year's wages calculated on the scale sanctioned by the Wage Board recommendations for each such workman be paid. All the sums, if no~ paid before 15-5-80, shall carry 12% interest. And upto 15-5-80 they shall carry 9% interest in superses~ion of the interim order dated 5-5-72. Rough _'1"_ \'· ' ~ .... and ready justice, for want of full information, is riot satisfactory but ·,. D cannot be helped. We dismiss the workmen's apF.1. No costs. We dismiss the Management's appeal, subject to the above directions, with costli quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. s. R. _Appeals_ _dismissed_