1964 (12) TMI 73 - HC - Indian Laws

Award of an Industrial Tribunal - retrenchment of 52 employees - increase in the work-load of the Company - Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 25(F) and Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act - principle of last come first go - HELD THAT - In the case before us the definite finding of the Tribunal is that the Company had failed to establish that it was for economy and convenience that the so-called scheme of reorganisation was adopted. The further definite finding of the Tribunal is that retrenchment was effected only in Calcutta and not at the other branches although some agencies had been given up at the other branches. The finding of the Tribunal further is that in the matter of effecting retrenchment in Calcutta the Company was actuated by parochial considerations and consequently the retrenchment was not bona fide. The Tribunal has also very fairly and impartially recorded the finding that the Union has failed to make out a case of victimisation but it was of the view that the probability that the Union activities would be weakened by largo scale retrenchment could not be ignored or overlooked. It is moreover difficult for us to come to the conclusion that these findings are not supported by any evidence. It has been argued before us that the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and are the result of bias. But merely because the Tribunal has drawn certain adverse inferences or conclusions from the evidence on record it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Tribunal was partial or biased or that the findings are perverse. The Tribunal has given reasons in great detail and it may be that in certain matters the line of reasoning is not very cogent or logical or the Tribunal may have made observations and offered criticism which the Tribunal might not properly have made. But that is far from saying that the findings are arbitrary or perverse or are actuated by bias. A perverse finding is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. A wrong finding is not necessarily a perverse finding. A finding cannot be said to be perverse merely because it is possible to take a different view on the evidence. The Tribunal has found upon consideration of the evidence in this case that the retrenchment was not bona fide and it was actuated by parochial considerations and the Tribunal has given reasons for coming to the conclusion. It may be that this finding is a wrong one but it cannot be said that it is a finding which is based on no evidence or is a perverse finding. It was also argued on behalf of the respondent Company that the Order of the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the employees to their former jobs in the Calcutta branch or by suitable transfer to other branches cannot be given effect to in view of the agencies in Calcutta being given up and as it is not clear what is meant by the expression suitable transfer as used in the Order. But it appears to us that there is no force in this contention as the directions given by the Tribunal are quite clear and specific. The direction is that it is not possible to reinstate the employees to their former jobs in Calcutta branch they can be provided with a suitable employment by means of transfer to other branches of the Company. We do not see how it can be said that such directions are incapable of implementation. In the result this appeal is allowed and the judgment and Order of the learned trial Judge are set aside and the Award of the Tribunal is upheld.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of the retrenchment of 52 employees.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 25(F) and Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. Bona fides of the company's reorganization policy.
4. Allegations of victimization and parochial considerations.
5. Tribunal's jurisdiction and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Retrenchment of 52 Employees:

The Tribunal found that the company had not established a bona fide reorganization scheme. The retrenchment was not justified as the company failed to prove that it was for reasons of economy or convenience. The Tribunal noted that retrenchment was effected only in Calcutta despite the relinquishment of agencies in other branches, suggesting parochial considerations. The Tribunal concluded that the retrenchment was not bona fide and was influenced by parochial considerations.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 25(F) and Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act:

The Tribunal found that the company did not follow the principle of "last come first go" in the retrenchment process. It also noted that the provision under Section 25(F)(c) was not followed, making the retrenchment illegal. The Tribunal directed the company to reinstate the retrenched employees with continuity of service and back wages, adjusting the retrenchment compensation already paid.

3. Bona Fides of the Company's Reorganization Policy:

The Tribunal questioned the genuineness of the company's reorganization policy, noting that the company had relinquished profitable agencies in Calcutta while retaining them in Madras. The Tribunal found that the company's claim of shifting focus to manufacturing was not supported by evidence, especially given the attempt to sell the Kidderpore factory. The Tribunal concluded that the reorganization was not bona fide and was influenced by parochial considerations.

4. Allegations of Victimization and Parochial Considerations:

The Tribunal found that the Union failed to establish a case of victimization but noted that the retrenchment could weaken Union activities. The Tribunal concluded that the retrenchment was influenced by parochial considerations, as evidenced by the retention of agencies in Madras and the increase in workload in Calcutta after retrenchment.

5. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and the Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution:

The High Court, in reviewing the Tribunal's decision, emphasized that it cannot function as a Court of Appeal and reappreciate evidence. The High Court noted that findings of fact by a Tribunal should be treated as final unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse. The High Court concluded that the learned trial Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by reappraising the evidence and substituting his own findings for those of the Tribunal.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge were set aside. The Award of the Tribunal was upheld, directing the company to reinstate the retrenched employees with continuity of service and back wages. The High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, reiterating that it cannot interfere with findings of fact by a Tribunal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.