# HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD v. EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 563
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-09-07
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hindustan-tin-works-pvt-ltd-v-employees-of-hindustan-tin-works-pvt-ltd-7595
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
v.
EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
September 7, 1978
lV. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ]
Constitution of India 1950--Article 136-Scope of in labour rnattersArticle 43A-Explained-Participation of work1nen in lhe Management.
Utti1r Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Workers retrenched on grounds
-of losses-Tribunal found retrenchment unjustified-Ordered reinstatement with
back wages-.-Special leave refused regarding reinstatement-E11iployer if could·
.rt'open at the time of hearing.
Awarding full or {Xlrtial back wages-Principles for awarding-Employee's
A
B
c
•
fi11a11cia/ viability to pay back wages-If could be a factor for not awarding
full back wages.
1-
·-i
The management (Appellant) retrenched 56 of its workmen alleging non~
availability of raw material to utilise the full installed capacity, power shedding
D
limiting the working of the unit to 5 days a week and mounting Ios.ses.
As -a
result of negotiations between the parties, the retrenched workmen were ta-ten
back in service.
A few days later, however, the workmen demanded revision
Qf wage scales, but the appellant pleaded inability to revise the pay scales
in view uf lhe mounting losses. Thereafter, the employer retrenched 43 workmen. 'r"he dispute resulting out of the retrenchment was referred to adjudication un<ler sec1ion 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
E
The Labour Court held that the real reason for retrenchment y,·as annoyance felt by the management when the employees refused to agree to the terms
of settlen1ent and that it was not for the reasons stated by the employer.
The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the retrenched workmen with full
back wages.
In the Special leave petition the employer questioned the correctness of the
Labour Coort's view that the retrenched workmen should be reinstated.
This
Court rejected this prayer and limited the special leave to the question of
granting buck wages to the retrenched workmen ordered to be reinstated.
F
HELD : L Since the emoloyer's prayer in the special leave petition that
the retrenched workmen should not be reinestated was rejected by this Court
it meant that the Labour Court's view that retrenchment was unjustified was
G
correct For the reasons found by the Labour Court retrenchment \Vas moti6
vated and so inva1id. The workmen were entitled to the relief of reinstatement
from the date tlley were sought to be retrenched. The order of the Labour
Court on the question of reinstatement became final. [567 C-E]
2. Article 136 of the Constitution does not envisage this Court to be a
1egular Court of Appeal, but it confers & discretionary power on it to grant
B
special leave to appeal, inter a/ia, against the Award of any Tnbunal. The
scope and ambit of this vide constitutional discretionary power cannot be
_;.::
_..;._
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
exhaustively defined. It cannot be so construed as to confer a right to a
'-
party when he has none under the law. The Court will entertain a petition
for special leave in which a question of general public importance is involved
or when the decisions would shock the conscience of this Court. The Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained code and it seeks to
achieve social justice on the basis 6f collective bargaiining, conciliation and
arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and
II
the Tribunals are to a large extent free from restrictions of technical considerations imposed on Courts. A free and liberaA exercise of the power under
Article 136 may materially affect the fundamental basis of such decisions,
viz., quick solution of such dispu~es to achieve industrial peace. [567 F-568 A]
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workmen ~
[1959] .Suppl. 2 SCR 136 M 140 referred to.
c
D
E
F
G
H
2. In the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that
the termination of service is bad and the wo

## Text

HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
v.
EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
September 7, 1978
lV. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ]
Constitution of India 1950--Article 136-Scope of in labour rnattersArticle 43A-Explained-Participation of work1nen in lhe Management.
Utti1r Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Workers retrenched on grounds
-of losses-Tribunal found retrenchment unjustified-Ordered reinstatement with
back wages-.-Special leave refused regarding reinstatement-E11iployer if could·
.rt'open at the time of hearing.
Awarding full or {Xlrtial back wages-Principles for awarding-Employee's
A
B
c
•
fi11a11cia/ viability to pay back wages-If could be a factor for not awarding
full back wages.
1-
·-i
The management (Appellant) retrenched 56 of its workmen alleging non~
availability of raw material to utilise the full installed capacity, power shedding
D
limiting the working of the unit to 5 days a week and mounting Ios.ses.
As -a
result of negotiations between the parties, the retrenched workmen were ta-ten
back in service.
A few days later, however, the workmen demanded revision
Qf wage scales, but the appellant pleaded inability to revise the pay scales
in view uf lhe mounting losses. Thereafter, the employer retrenched 43 workmen. 'r"he dispute resulting out of the retrenchment was referred to adjudication un<ler sec1ion 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
E
The Labour Court held that the real reason for retrenchment y,·as annoyance felt by the management when the employees refused to agree to the terms
of settlen1ent and that it was not for the reasons stated by the employer.
The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the retrenched workmen with full
back wages.
In the Special leave petition the employer questioned the correctness of the
Labour Coort's view that the retrenched workmen should be reinstated.
This
Court rejected this prayer and limited the special leave to the question of
granting buck wages to the retrenched workmen ordered to be reinstated.
F
HELD : L Since the emoloyer's prayer in the special leave petition that
the retrenched workmen should not be reinestated was rejected by this Court
it meant that the Labour Court's view that retrenchment was unjustified was
G
correct For the reasons found by the Labour Court retrenchment \Vas moti6
vated and so inva1id. The workmen were entitled to the relief of reinstatement
from the date tlley were sought to be retrenched. The order of the Labour
Court on the question of reinstatement became final. [567 C-E]
2. Article 136 of the Constitution does not envisage this Court to be a
1egular Court of Appeal, but it confers & discretionary power on it to grant
B
special leave to appeal, inter a/ia, against the Award of any Tnbunal. The
scope and ambit of this vide constitutional discretionary power cannot be
_;.::
_..;._
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
exhaustively defined. It cannot be so construed as to confer a right to a
'-
party when he has none under the law. The Court will entertain a petition
for special leave in which a question of general public importance is involved
or when the decisions would shock the conscience of this Court. The Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained code and it seeks to
achieve social justice on the basis 6f collective bargaiining, conciliation and
arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and
II
the Tribunals are to a large extent free from restrictions of technical considerations imposed on Courts. A free and liberaA exercise of the power under
Article 136 may materially affect the fundamental basis of such decisions,
viz., quick solution of such dispu~es to achieve industrial peace. [567 F-568 A]
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workmen ~
[1959] .Suppl. 2 SCR 136 M 140 referred to.
c
D
E
F
G
H
2. In the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that
the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service.
The common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifi~
cally enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this
branch of law. The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can
be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. [568 G-H]
3. Where termination of service is questioned as being invalid or illegal
and the workman has to go through the litigation, his Ct\fI)acity to sustain
himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself so precarious that he may
not survive to see the day when relief is granted. If after such prolonged
litigation the workman is not paid bis back wages it would amount to a
penalty for no fault of his. The workman whose service has been illegally
terminated •.vould be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was
gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. If the termination is illegal
or motivated it may amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstarices
reinstatement being the· normal fule it should be done with full back wages.
[569 B-DJ
Workmen of Calcutta Dock Labour Board & Anr. v. Emplo~·ers in relation
to Calcutta Dock Labour Board & Ors .• [1974] 3 S.C.C. 216, referred to.
Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen .[19711 3 SCR 774 ~
referred to.
Dhari Grant Pancha)'at v. Safai Kr11ndar Manda! [1971] 1 LLJ 508 approved.
Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour Co11rt ll Lucknow & Ors. [1971] 1 LLJ 327 approved.
For awarding relief of back wages all releva•nt considerations will enter ihe
verdict of the Tribunal.
Full back wages would be the normal rule and the
party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure.
The Tribunal will t.hen exercise its discretion.
But the diScretion must be
exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discre~
tion must be cogent and convincing and must appear 011 the face of the
record. It should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regufiir.
[570 E-Gl
Susa1111uli Sham v. Wakefield [1891] AC 173 a.t 179 referred to.
•
....
'"
HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS v. EMPLOYEES (Desai, J.)
565
On the question of the employer's financial viability to pay back wages
A
in view of mounting losses the Supreme Court held :
\a) Ihdustry is a common venture, the participants being capital and
labon1:.
Article 43A requires the State. to take steps to. secure participation
of \.vorkmen in the management.
From being a factor of production labour
has become a partner in industry.
It is a common venture in pursuit of a
desired goal.
If sacrifice is necessary in the overall interest of the industry
B
it would be unfair to expect only ·labour to make the sacrifice.
lt shoul<l
be a common sacrifice. If sacrifice is necessary those who can afford nnd
have the capacity must bear the brunt. [571 A-F]
(b) In the present case there is nothing to show that the Managing Director
has made any sacrifice.
In the absence of such information ·the v.'eaker
section of society cannot be expected to make a greater sacrifice than the
directors.
ln an appropriate ~e it would be appropriate to direct that till
C
the loss is wiped out the managing directors shall not cha.rge any fees for
the oervices re<idered and no dividend shall be paid. ['71 G, 572 E-F]
(c) As the appellant has turned the comer, and the industrial unit is looking up and started _making profits, the retrenched workmen having already
been reinstated and started earning their wages it woold be appropriate to
award 75% of the back wa~ to the workmen to be paid in two eQual
D
inotalments. [572 D]
C!YIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 656 of 1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated 21-9-1977 of the
Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 160/74.
G. B. Pai, L. R. Singh, R. P. Singh, R. K. lain, Suman Kapoor
E
and Sukumar Sahu for the Appellant.
R. K. Garg, V. J. Francis and Madan Mohan
for
Respondent
No. !.
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana for Respondents 2-3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J.
This appeal by special leave, limited to the question
of grant of back wages, raises a very humane problem in the field
of industrial jurisprudence, namely, where termination of
service
either by dismissal, discharge or even retrenchment is held invalid
and the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service is awarded
what ought to be the criterion for grant of compensation, to the extent of full wages or a part of it ?
A few relevant facts will highlight the problem posed. Appellant
is a private limited Company having set up an industrial
unit
in
engineering industry. The raw material for its manufacturing process
is tin plates. The appellant served notice of retrenchment
on
56
workmen in February 1974 alleging non-availability of raw material
to utilise the full installed capacity, power shedding
limiting
the
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l S.C.R.
working of the unit to 5 days a week, and the mounting loss. Subsequently, negotiations took place between the Union and the appellant
lead:ng to an agreement dated !st April 1974 whereby the workmen
who were sought to be retrenched were taken back in service with
continuity of service by the appellant and the workmen on their part
agreed to co-operate with the management in implementing certain
economy measures and in increasing the productivity so as to make
the undertaking economically viable. Simultaneously, the workmen
demanded a revision of the wage scales and the appellant pleaded its
inability in view of the mounting losses. Some negotiations took place
and a draft memorandum of settlement was drawn up which provided for revision of wages on the one hand and higher norms
of
production on the other, but ultimately the settlement fell through.
Appellant thereafter on !st July, 1974 served a notice of retrenchment on 43 workmen. The Tin Workers' Union, Ghaziabad, espoused
the cause of such retrenched workmen and ultimately the Government of Uttar Pradesh by its notification dated 9th October 1974,
i<sued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 4-K of rhe U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the industrial dispute arising
out of retrenchment of 43 workmen, between the parties, for adjudication to the Labour Court. Names of the retrenched workmen were
set out in an Annexure to the order of reference.
The Labour Court, after examining the evidence led on both sides
and considering various relevant circumstances, held that the reasons
stated in the notice dated !st July, 1974, Ext. E-2, viz., heavy loss
caused by non-availability of tin plates, persistent power curbs
11.Ild
mounting cost of production, were not the real reasons for affecting
retrenchment but the real reason was the annoyance felt
by the
management consequent upon the refusal of the workmen to agree to
the terms of settlement contained in the draft dated 5th April, 1974
and, therefore, the retrenchment was illegal. The Labour Court by its
award directed that all the workmen shall be reinstated in service from
!st August, 1974 with full back wages, permitting the appellant to
deduct any amount paid as retrenchment compensation from the
amount payable to the workmen as back W,Jtges.
The appellant challenged the Award in this appeal. When the special leave petition came
up for admission, this Court rejected the special leave petition with
regard to the relief of reinstatement but limited the leave to the grant
of full back wages.
The question whether the workmen who were retrenched were enH
titled to the relief of reinstatement is no more open to challenge. In
other words, it would mean that the retrenchment of workmen was invalid for the reasons found by the Labour Court and the workmen were
HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS v. EMPLOYEES (Desai, !.)
567
entitled to the relief of reinstatement effective from the day on which
they were sought to be retrenched. The workmen were sought. to be
retrenched from 1st August, 1974 and the Labour Court has directed
their reinstatement effective from that date. The L!!bour Court has also
awarded full back wages to the workmen_ on its finding that the retrenchment was not bona fide and that the non-availability of the raw
material or recurrent power shedding and lack of profitability was a
mere pretence or a ruse to torment the workmen by depriving t!Tem
of their livelihood, the real reason being the annoyance of the appellant
consequent upon the refusal of the workmen to be a party to a proposed settlement by which work-load was sought to be raised.
Mr. Pai, learned counsel for the appellant in his attempt to persuade us to give something less than full back wages, attempted to re-open
the controversy concluded by the orde~ of this Court while granting
limited leave that the' retrenchment was inevitable in view of the mounting l05ses and falling production for want of raw material and persistent power shedding. It was said that for the limited purpose of arriving at a jmt decision on the question whether the workmen should be
awarded full back wages, we should look into the compelling necessity
for retrenchment of the \Vorkmen.
Once leave against relief of reinstatement was rejected, the order of the Labour Court holding that retrenchment was invalid and it was motivated and the relief of reinstatement must follow, has become final.
Under no pretext or guise it
·could now be re-opened.
Before dealing with the contentions in this appeal we must bear in
mind the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution vis-a-vis the Awards of the Industrial Tribunals. Article
136 of the Constituyon does not envisage this Court to be a regular
Court of Appeal but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme
Court to grant special leave to appeal, inter alia, against the Award of
any Tribunal in the territory of India.
The scope and ambit of this
wide constitutional discretionary power cannot be exhaustively defined.
It cannot obviously be so construed as to confer a right to a party when
he has none under the law.
The Court will entertain a petition for
special leave in which a question of general public importance is inmlved or when the decision would shock the conscience of this Court.
The Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained one and
it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining,
conciliation and arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and the Tribunals are to a large extent free from
restrictions of technical considerations imposed on courts. A free and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] I s.c.R.
liberal exercise of the power under Article 136 may materially affect
the fundamental basis of such decisions, viz., quick solution of such disputes to achieve industrial peace. Though Article 136 is couched in
widest terms, it is necessary for this Court to exercise its (liscretionary
jurisdiction only in cases where Awards are made in violation of the
principles of natural justice causing substantial and grave injustice to
parties or raises an important principle of industrial law requiring elucidation and final decision by this Court or discloses such other exceptional or special circumstances which merit consideration of this Court
(See Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their·
Workmen) (').
The question in controversy which fairly often is raised in this
Court is whether even where reinstatement is found to be an appropriate relief, what should be the guiding considerations for awarding
full or partial back wages. This question is neither new nor raised for
the first time. It crops up every time when the workman questions the
D
validity and legality of termination of his service howsoever brought
about, to wit, by dismissal, removal, discharge or retrenchment, and
the relief of reinstatement is granted.
As a necessary corollary the
question immediately is raised as to whether the workman should be
awarded full back wages or some sacrifice is expected of him.
E
F
G
Let us steer clear of one controversy whether where termination of
service is found to be invalid, reinstatement as a matter of
COUille
should be awarded or compensation would be an adequate relief. That
question does not arise in this appeal. Here the relief of reinstatement
has been granted and the award has been implemented and the retrenched workmen have been reinstated in service. The only limiied
question is whether the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances
of this case was justified in awarding full back wages.
·
It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of service is bad
and the workman continues to be in service. The spectre of common
law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this
branch of law.
The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service
can be granted where termination of service is found to be in\ialid. It
would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to
work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If
(I) [1959! Suppl. 2 SCR 136 at 140.
'
_.
' •
HINDl,JSTAN TIN WORKS v. EMPLOYEES (Desai, J.)
569
thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the
workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk bis
responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived
of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer.
Speaking realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal
and tho workman has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such
an awesome factor that he may not survive to see .the day when relief
is grnnted. More so in our system where the la'><'s proverbial delay
has become stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy
consuming litigation during which period the workma11 just sustains
himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he
will be denied the back wages w)rich would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it
is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service
has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced
idleness.
That is the normal rule.
Any other view woulrl be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer.
If the
employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case, viz., to resist the workman's demand for revision
of wages. the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice.
In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should
be followed with full back wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the Constitution would assis1 us in reaching a just conclusion in this respect. By a
suitabk legislation, to wit, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
State has endeavoured to secure work to the workmen. In breach of
the statutory obligation the services were terminated and the termination is found to be invalid; the workmen though willing to do the
assigned work and earn their livelihood, were kept away therefrom. On
top of it they were forced to litigation upto the apex Court and now
they :ire being told that something less than full back wages should
be awarded to them. If the services were not terminated the workmen
ordinarilv would have continued to work and would have earned their
wages. .When it was held that the termination of services was neither
proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were
always willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimatelv be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workmen were
always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account
of invalid act of the employer, there is uo justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them .
A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat
v. Safai Kwndar Mandal('), and a Division Bench ot the Allahabad
(1) [1971] I Labour law Journa' 50~.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
High Court in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd.
v.
Labour Court II, Lucknow & Ors.( 1), have taken this view and we
are of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct.
B
c
D
E
F
G
The view taken by us gets support from the decision of this Court
in Workmen of Calcutta Dock Labour Board & Anr. v. Employers in
relation to Calcutta Dock Labour Board & Ors. (2). In this case seven
workmen had been detained under the Defence of India Rules and one
of the disputes was that when they were released and reported for
duty, they were not taken in service and the demand was for their
reinstatement.
The Tribunal directed reinstatement of five out of seven
workmen and thls part of the Award was challenged before thls Court.
This Court held that the workmen concerned did not have any opportunity of explaining why their services should not be terminated and,
therefore, reinstatement was held to be the appropriate relief, and set
aside the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that there was no
justification for not awarding full back wages from the day they offered
to resume work till their reinstatement.
Almost an identical view was
taken in Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen(').
In the very naturte of thlngs there cannot be a straight jacket formula
for awarding relief of back wages.
All relevant considerations will
enter the verdict.
More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the
discretion of the Tribunal.
Full back wages would be the normal rule
and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure.
At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion
keeping in view all the relevant circumstances.
But the discretion mus!
be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner.
The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on
the fac~ of the record.
When it is said that something is to be done
within the discretion of the authority, that somethlng is to be done
according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not
humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and
regular (See Susannah Sharn v. Wakefield(').
It was, however, very strenuously contended that as the appellant
company is suffering loss and its carry-forward loss as on 31st March
1978 is Rs. 8,12,416.90, in order to see that the indu,try survives and
the workmen continue to get employment, there must be some sacrifice
on the part of workmen.
If the normal rule in a case like this is to
award full back wages, the burden will be on the appellant employer
11
(I) [1971] I Labour Law Jo,,rna: 327.
<2) [197·11 3 sec 216.
(3) [19711 .J. SCR
774.
(4) [1891] AC 173 at 179.
' '
HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS v. EMPLOYEES (Desai, I.)
571
to establish circumstances which would permit a departure from the
normal rule.
To substantiate the contention that this is an exceptional
case for departing from the normal rule it was stated that loss is mounting up and if the appellant is called upon to pay full back wages in
the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-, it would shake the financial
viability of the company and the burden would be unbearable.
More
often when some monetary claim by the workmen is being exammed,
this financial inability of the company consequent upon the demand
being granted is voiced.
Now, undoubtedly an industry is a common
venture, the participants being the capital and the labour.
Gone are
the days when labour was considered a factor of production.
Arficle
43A of the Consfitution requires the State to take steps to secure the
participation of workmen in the management of the undertaking,
establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.
Thus,
from being a factor of production the labour has become a partner
in industry. It is a co=on venture in the pursuit of desired gO'dl.
Now, if a sacrifice is necessary in the overall interest of the industry
or a particular undertaking, it would be both unfair and inequitous to
expect only one partner of the industry to make the sacrifice.
Pragmatism compels common sacrifice on the part of both.
The sacrifice must
come from both the partners and we need not state the obvious that
the labour is a weaker partner who is more often called upon to make
the sacrifice.
Sacrifice for the survival of an industrial undertaking
cannot be an unilateral action. It must be a two way traffic.
The
management need not have merry time to itself making the workmen
the sacrificial goat. If sacrifice is necessary, those who can afford
and have the cushion and the capacity must bear the greater brunt
making the shock of sacrifice as less poignant as possible for those
who keep body and soul together with utmo.st difficulty.
The appellant wants us to give something less than full back wages
in this case which the Labour Court has awarded.
There is nothing
to show whether the Managing Director has made any sacrifice; whether his salary and perks have been adversely affected; whether t1Je
managerial coterie has reduced some expenses on itself. If there is
no such material on record, how do we expect the workmen, the fess
affording of the weaker segment of the society, to make the sacrifice,
because sacrifice on their part is denial of the very means of livelihood.
We have also found that since 1976-77 the appellant is making
profit.
A Statement of Account certified by the Chartered Accountants
of the company dated 25th July, 1978 shows that. the appellant bas
been making profit since 1976-77. The unit is, therefore, looking up.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
One relevant aspect which would assist us in reaching a just conclusion is that after retrenching 43 workmen effective from 1st August
1974, 36 of them were recalled for service on large number of days in
1975-1976 and 1977, the maximum being the case of Jai Hind who
was given work for 724t days, and the minimum being Harsaran
s/o Baldev who w:as giv~n work for 15
days.
An
amount
of
Rs. 74,587.26 was paid to these 36 workmen for the work rendered
by them since the date of retrenchment. Certainly, the appellant would
get credit for the amount so paid plus the retrenchment compensation
it must have paid.
Even then we were told that the employer will
have to pay Rs. 2,80,000/- by w~y of back wages.
We were also
told that the appellant had off~ to pay by way of settlement 50%
of the back wages.
Therefore, the only question is whether we should
confirm the Award for full back wages.
Now, nndoubtedly the appellant appears to have turned the corner.
The industrial unit is looking up. It has_ started making profits. The
workmen have already been reinstated and therefore, they have started
earning their wages.
It may, however, be recalled that the appellant
has still not cleared its accumulated loss.
Keeping in view all the
facts and circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to award
75% of the back wages to the workmen to be paid in two equal
instalments.
It may well be that in appropriate cases the Court may, in the spirit
of labour and management being .partners in the industry, direct scaling
down of back wages with some sacrifice on management's part too.
We were, even here, inclined to saddle the condition that till the loss
is totally wiped out the Managing Director and the Directors shall not
charge any fee for the services rendered as Director, no dividend shall
be paid to equity shareholders, and the Managing Director shall not be
paid any overriding commission, if there be any, on the turnover of
the company since this will account for the pragmatic approach of
common ·sacrifice in tho interest of the industry.
We indicate the
implicatiOI)S of Article 43A in this area of law but do not impose it
here for want of fuller facts.
The Award shall stand accordingly modified to the effect that the
retrenched workmen who are now reinstated shall be paid 75% of the
back wages after deducting the amount paid to them as wages when
recalled for work since tho date of retrenchment and adjustment of the
retrenchment compensation towards the amount found due and payable.
The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondents as directed
while granting special leave.
N.V.K.
Appeal dismissed.
).
'
i