Appeals Nos 675 to 681 of 1967
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated March 23 1967 of the Third Industrial Tribunal West Bengal in Misc
Cases Nos 161 160 162 64 and 167 of 1966
AND Civil Appeal No 1759 of 1971 Appeal by special leave from the Award dated August 11 1969 of the Third Industrial Tribunal West Bengal Calcutta in Case No VIII 373 of 1966 published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 27 9 1969
section V Gupte G B Pai Bhuvanesh Kumari B Ram Rakhjani and J B Dadachanji  Co for the appellant
In CAs
675 68167
V M Tarkunde Rathin Das Jitendra Sharma and section K Ganguli  Co for the appellant
In CA 175971
627 V M Tarkunde Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI J
The first batch of appeals are by the Hindustan Lever Ltd hereinafter called the Employer and Civil Appeal No 1759 of 1971 is by the Mazdoor Sabha of the workers of the same employer in its Calcutta Branch
The Calcutta Branch was concerned only with marketing
From the year 1956 at least if not earlier the company s marketing Organisation was in three divisions the Soaps Division the Foods Division and the Toilet Preparations Division
From 6 9 66 the Company reorganised this marketing Organisation into two divisions the Main Lines Division and the Speciality Lines Division
On 30 9 66 the Government of West Bengal referred to the Third Industrial Tribunal the following question for adjudication  Is the human rationalisation as a measure of economic reorganisation of the Company reflected through job integration that have either been effected or proposed to be effected justified To what relief if any are the workmen entitled Pending adjudication of this issue seven workers filed applications under section 33A of the before the same
Tribunal alleging that during the pendency of the adjudication their service conditions had been changed adversely and their salary for the month of October 1966 had not been paid
The Tribunal held in favour of the workers and passed its award on 23 3 1967
By special leave granted by this Court the employer has filed the above 7 appeals
The main reference was finally disposed of on 11 8 69 by the same Tribunal holding in favour of the employer and the workers have therefore filed Civil Appeal No 1759 of 1971 by special leave granted by this Court
It should be mentioned that the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal was different in the two cases but the different conclusions arrived at by the two Presiding Officers were not due to the accident of difference in personnel
There was a vast mass of evidence let in by the employer in the main reference on a consideration of which the Tribunal held in favour of the employer
On the other hand the evidence in the applications filed under section 33A of the  let in by the employer was meagre and the Tribunal came to the conclusion on the material available before it that the conditions of work of workers had been changed to their prejudice that the reorganisation was likely to lead to retrenchment and that the matter thus fell under Item 10 of Schedule IV of the 
The evi 628 dence given in the main reference not being part of the evidence in these 7 cases it is not open to this Court to take it into consideration in deciding these 7 appeals
On an exhaustive consideration of the material in both the awards we have come to the conclusion that both the awards should be upheld
Though the decision in the appeals by the management is based on the finding of the Tribunal that the conditions of work had been changed to the disadvantage of the workers and the decision in the appeal filed by the workers is in effect that the conditions have not been so changed that is due to the evidence available in the two cases
Mr Tarkunde appearing on behalf of the workers in the appeal filed by them in CA No 1759 of 1971 in effect invited us to re assess the evidence in that case
His whole point was that the reorganisation effected by the management in September 1966 was one which attracted items 8 10 and 11 of the IVth Schedule to the and as such a notice in accordance with Rule 34 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules and Form E appended to those rules under section 9A of that Act was necessary
He was at pains to establish this proposition lest it should effect the workers in the others 7 appeals filed by the employer
This Court in considering a matter under Article 136 does not ordinarily re assess the evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal came to its conclusions
It will interfere with the findings of facts by the Tribunal only if it is unsupported by any evidence or is wholly perverse
It will not interfere with findings of the facts if two views are possible as to the conclusions to be arrived at on the basis of the evidence even though the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal might not commend itself to this Court
Mr Tarkunde even indicated that he was not very much interested in the success of the appeal of the workers in the sense that he wanted the scheme of reorganisation introduced by the employer to be dropped
According to him the employer had the right to reorganise his business subject only to his compliance with the provisions of section 9A of the  which according to him has not been done in this case
He wanted to establish this proposition only for laying a foundation for the argument that when after the introduction of the reorganisation by the employer the workers refused to work except on the basis of the previous system of working they were perfectly within their rights and it was therefore illegal for the management to have refused to pay them their salary and that this was an alteration of the conditions of their service during the pendency of an adjudication of an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal
But in the view we are taking regarding the correctness of the award of the Industrial Tribunal on the applications of the workers under section 33A the workers would probably have no grievance
629 We shall first of all deal with the appeal by the workers
Two points were raised by Mr Tarkunde  1
That it was necessary to give notice under section 9A and wait for 21 days before implementing the scheme of reorganisation and 2
as notice was necessary the scheme cannot be said to be justified when it was implemented
As regards nonpayment of wages as subsidiary points he raised the questions 1the workmen were _justified in refusing to work under the new scheme and 2
the non payment of wages amounted in the circumstances of the case to an alteration in the conditions of service to the prejudice of workers
These two are really questions which arise in the appeals filed by the employer and not in this appeal
According to Mr Tarkunde the very fact that three Divisions were sought to be reduced to two would show that it would increase the workload on the workmen and result in retrenchment
We do not think that the matter could be disposed of on such a priority consideration
His grievance also was that the employer had agreed to consult the workers but did not do so
He also urged that three godowns which previously existed were reduced to
two godowns and that proved a greater burden on the Godown Keeper
He further urged that the Journey Cycles ie the period during which salesmen were expected to be on tour contacting the various dealers were increased from 4 weeks to 6 12 weeks and that this also proved a greater burden on the salesmen
He urged that the Sabha had a reasonable apprehension that there will be retrenchment if the 612 week cycles were introduced
But he conceded that this was avoided in actual working
As already mentioned earlier he contended that the Sabha has now no objection to the present arrangement but the employer contends that conditions are very unstable and they now have 3 and even 4 divisions
According to him the reorganisation is either a change in usage falling under item 8 of 10th Schedule to the Act or rationalisation falling under item 10 or increase or education in the number of persons employed in any department not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control falling under item 11
According to him the workers having been accustomed to working under 3 divisions reorganisation into 2 divisions amounted to a change in usage
He also urged that rationalisation and standardisation per se would fall under item 10 even if they were not likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen and only improvement of plant or technique would require that they should lead to retrenchment of 8 L761Sup
CI73 630 workmen in order to fall
under item IO
A further submission of his was that standardisation merely meant standardisation of wages
We are not able to accept this argument
It appears
to us that the arrangement of words and phrases in that item shows that only rationalisation or standardisation or improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen would fall under that item
In other words rationalisation or standardisation by itself would not fall under item 10 unless it is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen
The reference to rationalisation at page 257 of the report of the Labour Cornmission and the reference to standardisation of wages in it are not
very helpful in this connection
Standardisation can be of anything not necessarily of wages
It may be standardisation of workload standardisation of product standardisation of working hours or standardisation of leave privileges
Indeed in one deci sion in Alembic Chemical Works Co Ltd vs The Workmen1 there is reference to standardisation of conditions of service standardisation of hours of work wage structure
That case itself was concerned with standardisation of leave
The whole question whether this reorganisation falls under item 10 depends upon whether it was likely  to lead to retrenchment of workmen
On this question as already indicated the two Tribunals have arrived at two different conclusions
But as already indicated it depended upon the evidence in each case
It is not disputed that the re organisation has not resulted in any retrenchment
Moreover during the course of rather prolonged negotiations between the parties the employer made it abundantly clear again and again that no body would be retrenched
It was clearly made part and parcel of the scheme of reorganisation
Hindustan Lever Ltd being a large organisation covering the whole of the country there was no difficulty about giving effect to this reorganisation scheme without retrenching anybody
It was however urged on behalf of the workers that there have been a number of  voluntarily induced retirements and that many posts were not filled after the holders of these posts had retired or left
We are of opinion that the retrenchment contemplated under item 10 is retrenchment as defined in clause oo of section 2 where it is defined as the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason what soever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include voluntary retirement of the workman
The workers cannot therefore
make a grievance of the voluntary retirement and non filling of vacancies and try to bring it under item 10
As regards item 1 1 it was urged that as one department out of three has been abolished this item applies
Though to bring the matter under this item the workmen are not required to show 1  631 that there is increase in the workload it must be remembered that the 4th Schedule relates to conditions of service for change of which notice is to be given and section 9A requires the employer to give notice under that section to the workmen likely to be affected by such change
The word affected  in the circumstances could only refer to the workers being adversely effected and unless it could be shown that the abolition of one department has adversely affected the workers it cannot be brought under item 11
The same consideration applies to the question of change in usage under item 8
Let us therefore see what was the scheme of reorganisation to which the workers took exception
There can be no dispute that the employer has got the right to organise his work in the manner he pleases as was held in Parry  Company s1 case
As we have pointed out earlier there was extensive and prolonged consultation between the parties
The real grievance of the workers seems to be that the reorganisation of the working did not have their approval
Before the Tribunal the objection of the Sabha to the Company s scheme of reorganisation was that it was a condition of service
of every employee to work for only one division at a time after amalgamation of the three companies and for only one company prior to amalgamation
But the conditions in the letters of appointment of every worker in the company show the contrary
The Tribunal also found that the Salesmen of the company did in fact handle products of more than one division at a time in the course of joint selling operation since 1960
It was admitted that they also did it in the course of integrated selling in Assam since 1964 but that is said to be because that was done on an experimental basis
It was admitted that there are many employees in different departments of the company who by virtue of their _jobs cannot be attached to any one division
The Tribunal therefore held on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that the contention of the workers that it was a condition of service of every employee to work for only one division at a time was not established
It is in evidence that the company on occasions transferred products from one group to the other group to meet the business exigencies of the company
After referring to such instances the Tribunal has held that in certain cases a system of joint selling of products of the three divisions by the same salesmen through Sales Vans in several markets in India was adopted
According to the employer if the three divisional set up had been continued it would have adversely affected the business of the company and kept a large number of salesmen of the Foods Division only partly occupied and the company could have had no option but to retrench some number of salesmen work 1 1970 ILLJ 429
632 ing in the Foods Division
It therefore effected the reorganisation to meet the challenge of change in marketing conditions
The scheme of reorganisation in this case was  Firstly as a result of the regrouping of the products from the three divisions into two lines the sales management staff of the company was redeployed on a geographical basis instead of product group basis
Secondly the employer reorganised its trade outlets so that ReDistribution Stockists would handle all the products of the company rather than the products of any particular division
Thirdly the entire sales force was redeployed over two products groups ie Main Lines and Speciality Lines
The Tribunal following the decision of this Court in Parry  Co case held that the employer has the right to decide the staff complement and to fill only such jobs as continued to exist and not automatically replace every individual
The Tribunal has gone elaborately into the question of workload and come to the conclusion that there is no increase in the workload
We have already referred to the question of journey cycles
We see no reason to differ from the finding of the Tribunal that there has been no change in usage adversely effecting the worker and that as there has been no retrenchment item 10 of Schedule IV is not attracted nor is item 11
It is hardly necessary to refer to the various decisions which were cited before us as to what would constitute conditions of service the change of which would require notice under section 9A of the Act
In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs Kantu Kalu  Ors1 the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India held that the increase in the weight of bags to be carried from cwt to 112 cwt was a change in the workload and the company was bound to pay wages as the workmen were willing to work but did not work on account of the unreasonable attitude adopted by the management
In Chandramalai Estate vs Its Workmen2 the payment of Cumbly allowance was held to have become a condi tion of service
In The Graham Trading Co India Ltd vs Its Workmen3 it was held that the workmen were not entitled to Puja bonus as an implied term of employment
In Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd vs IT4 in the matter of withdrawal of concession of coming late by half an hour than the usual hour it was held that the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that section 9A did not apply to the case did not call for interference
But the decision proceeded on the basis that the Court will not interfere in its jurisdiction unless there was any manifest injustice
In McLeod  Co vs Its Workmen 5 the provision for tiffin was held to be an amenity to which the employees were entitled and 1 1955 I LLJ 316
2 3 1960 I SCR 107
4 5 633 the provision of cash allowance in lieu of free tiffin directed to be made by the industrial tribunal could not be considered to be erroneous in law
In India Overseas Bank vs Their Workmen1 key allowance  was treated as a term and condition of service
In Indian Oxygen Limited vs Udaynath Singh2 withdrawal by the management of the supply of one empty drum at a time at reasonable intervals was held not to contravene section 9A and 33
In Oil  Natural Gas Commission vs Their Workmen3 where there was nothing to show that it was a condition of service that a workman should work for 61 hours only no notice of change was held to be required under section 9A for fixing the hours of work at eight
In Tata Iron  Steel Co vs Workmen 4 change in weekly days of rest from Sunday to some other day was held to require notice
A close scrutiny of the various decisions would show that whether any particular practice or allowance or concession had become a condition of service would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule applicable to all cases could be culled out from these decisions
In the face of the elaborate consideration of the evidence and findings made by the Tribunal we are unable to hold that there has been any change in the terms and conditions of service of the workers in this case to their detriment
It follows therefore that section 9A is not attracted
It is therefore unnecessary to consider the question whether the argument advanced by Shri Gupte on behalf of the employer that in view of the very prolonged and detailed discussions that went on between the parties there was a substantial compliance with provisions of section 9A and the mere fact that a formal notice was not given under section 9A would not make the reorganisation scheme not valid
In the applications filed by the workers the Tribunal was conscious of the employer s right to reorganise his business in any fashion he likes for purposes of economy or convenience and that no body is entitled to tell him how he should conduct his business
But it was of the opinion that this right of the employer is subject to the limitations contained in section 9A
It specifically considered the applicability of item 10 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act and relying upon the decision in North Brooke Jute Co Ltd 1 held that no scheme of rationalisation could be given effect to if it was not preceded by a notice under section 9A
It did not consider it necessary to give a final decision regarding the legality or otherwise of the scheme introduced by the company
But it considered whether the workers refusal to work under he new scheme was justified
On the evidence it held that the Union had the apprehension that the proposed reorganisation would 1 2 3 4  5  634 result in some members of the staff becoming surplus and that this apprehension was not without justification and that the apprehension became true when the reorganisation was actually introduced
It also held that the workload of the various applicants increased as a result of the reorganisation
It therefore held that workers were within their legitimate right to refuse to do the work under the new scheme as no notice has been given under item 9A
It held that however laudable the object of the reorganisation may be it cannot be doubted for a moment on the evidence on record that the scheme has seriously prejudiced the workers
It therefore directed the employer to pay all the workers their wages for October 1966
Mr Gupte appearing for the employer contended relying on the decision in the case of North Brook Jute Co Ltd vs Their Workmen supra that the alteration of the conditions of service in this case even if it should be held that non payment of wages amounted to alteration of conditions of service was made not when a reference tinder section 10 was pending but that the reference itself having been made after the reoganisation no application could be made under section 33A
Technically no doubt this contention is correct because the scheme was introduced on the 5th or 6th of September and the reference was made on 30th of September
But the applications in this case were not for the wages due for the month of September but for October
The applications proceeded on the basis that the non payment of wages was an alteration in the conditions of service and it is to that question that we must first address ourselves
Mr Gupte contended that non payment of wages is not an alteration of conditions of service and that no application under section 33A could be made in such cases as the remedy available was under section 33C
We are not able to appreciate this argument
Indeed payment of wages is one of the most important among the workers  conditions of service
The worker works essentially only for the wages to be paid to him
Therefore the question that would really have to be answered is whether the refusal of the worker to work was justified or not
It is in evidence that the workers presented themselves for work every day and offered to work according to the old scheme but that they were not given any work according to the old scheme They were told that as long as they refused to work under the new scheme they would be paid no wages
The refusal to pay therefore was not a solitary instance in respect of which an application could have been made under section 33C
It was a continued refusal
It was therefore a permanent alteration of the conditions of service
The cause of action so to say arises de die in diem
If the refusal of the workers to work under the reoganisation scheme is justified then the refusal of the management to pay unless they worked under the reorganisation scheme would amount 635 to alteration of the conditions of service of workers
If on the other hand the workers were not justified in doing so then no other question arises
But in the face of the finding of the Tribuanal that the reorganisation scheme rendered some workers surplus and that the scheme had seriously prejudiced the workers and that the apprehension of the workers that the reorganisation would result in some member of the staff becoming surplus came true it cannot be said that the failure of the employer to give notice under section 9A and introducing the scheme of reorganisation without such notice is justified
It means that the workers were justified in refusing to work under the new scheme
It follows that the refusal to pay their wages amounted to alteration of conditions of service and the applications were therefore rightly made under section 33A
Even apart from that it was urged by Mr Gupte relying upon the decision in National Coal Co vs L P Dave1 that non payment of wages was neither an alteration in the conditions of service nor is it a punishment and as such cannot come within the mischief of section 33 of the Act
The Patna High Court relied also for its decision on the decision in Shama Biscuit Co vs Their Workmen2
The facts of that case are not quite clear The Court gives no reason for its view that the non payment of wages is not an alteration of conditions of service applicable to workmen and that it was only a case of default of payment of wages on the pay day falling under Payment of Wages Act
The facts there were in any case different from the facts of the present case
We may refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Rain Nath Koeri vs
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills  Ors
3 where it was observed that the payment of wages is one of the essential ingredients of the contract of employment and that the word conditions  includes the idea conveyed by the word terms  but goes beyond it and is not confined to what is included in that word
The Court also held that terms and conditions of employment  is wider in
scope than the expression terms and conditions of labour 
But as we have already observed failure or refusal to pay wages for a certain period may necessitate proceeding under section 33C but refusal to pay wages indefinitely on the refusal of the workers to work according to a scheme of reorganisation which was not a valid one because of the failure to give notice under section 9A cannot but be considered to be an alteration in the conditions of service of the workers
Mr Gupte complained that the Tribunal has not decided the question whether the reorganisation was justified
He also contended that the applications by the workers as well as the reference 1 AIR 1956 Patna 294
3 2 636 made by the company should have been heard together and should not have been disposed of separately
That is really the main complaint of the employer
As we have pointed out earlier if all the evidence which was let in in the reference were available to tile Tribunal which decided the applications of the workers the result might well have been different
But we do not consider that the Tribunal was wrong in having proceeded to dispose of the matter in the way it did
Mr Tarkunde rightly contended that even if an application had been made under section 33C the whole scheme would have to be considered and it is not fair at this distance of time to drive the workers to file applications under section 33C the procedure for which would be the same as under section 33A merely on the ground that the introduction of the scheme had taken place before the reference to adjudication was made
We consider that as an application under section 33A has to be decided as if it were a reference under section 10 the fact that the scheme had been introduced earlier than the reference to arbitration under section 10 does not bar an application under section 33A in the circumstances we have explained
We thus come to the conclusion 1 that non payment of wages in the circumstances of this case amounts to an alteration in the conditions of service 2 the fact that the scheme was introduced before the reference under section 10 was made does not bar an application under section 33A and 3 that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that this alteration in the conditions of service could not have been made without notice under section 9A
The result is that all the appeals are dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
VPS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Before September 1966 the marketing Organisation of the employercompany was in three divisions
Thereafter it was organised into two divisions
There were extensive and prolonged consultations between the employer and the employees but the reorganisation was not approved by the employees
The new scheme was introduced on the 5th or 6th September and the industrial dispute arising therefrom was referred to the Tribunal on 30th September
The workers presented themselves for work every day and offered to work according to the old scheme but they were not given any work
They were told that as long as they refused to work under the new scheme they would not be paid any wages
Some workers had voluntarily retired and the vacancies were not filled
Therefore pending the adjudication on the reference already made seven workers filed applications under section 33A of the  alleging that during the pendency of the adjucation their service conditions had been changed adversely and that their salary for the month of October had not been paid
The Industrial Tribunal was different in the two cases as also the evidence let in in the two cases
In the main reference the Tribunal held in favour of the employer
With reference to the applications of the employees the other Tribunal held in favour of the employees on the grounds that the conditions of work had been changed to the workers  prejudice that the reorganisation was likely to lead to re trenchment that the matter thus fell under item 10 of Schedule 4 to the Act and that therefore the employees were justified in refusing to work
Both parties appealed to this Court HELD  On a consideration of the material in each of the awards both the awards should be upheld
628 A B 1 The evidence given in the main reference not being a part of the evidence in the applications filed by the employees it is not open tothis Court to take it into consideration in deciding the appeals filed by the employer as against the award in favour of the employees
628A 2 This Court in considering a matter under article 136 does not ordinarily reassess the evidence on the basis of which the Tribunalcame to its conclusion
It will interfere with findings of facts only if they are unsupported by any evidence or are wholly perverse
628 D E 3 The reorganisation is neither a change in usage falling under item 8 of the 4th Schedule to the Act nor rationalisation falling under item 10 nor an increase or reduction in the number of persons employed in any department falling under item 11 and hence it was not necessary to give any notice under section 9A of the Act
633 D E 625 a The employer has a right to organise his work in the manner he pleases
631C b The various decisions show that whether any particular practice or allowance or concession had become a condition of service would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
 On the evidence and findings given by the Tribunal it cannot be held that there has been any change in the terms and conditions of service of the workers in this case to their detriment
633 C E Parry  Company s  Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs Kanju Kalu  Ors 1955 1 LLJ 316 Chandramalai Estate vs Its Workmen  The Graham Trading Co India Ltd vs Its Workmen   Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd vs IT  McLeod  Co vs Its Workmen  Indian Overseas Bank vs Their Workmen 1967 68  Indian Oxygen Limited vs Udaynath Singh  Oil  Natural Gas Commission vs Their Workmen and Tata Iron  Steel Co vs Workmen   referred to
c The Tribunal held on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that the contention of the workers that it was a condition of service of every employee to work for only one division at a time was not established
The arrangement of the words and phrases in item 10 shows that only rationalisation or standardisation or improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen that would fall under that item and not mere rationalisation or standardisation
The retrenchment contemplated is retrenchment as defined in section 200 which does not include voluntary retirement of the workmen
Therefore the workers cannot make a grievance of the voluntary retirement and non filling of vacancies and try to bring the matter under item 10
The employer had the right to decide the staff complement and to fill only such jobs as continued to exist and not automatically replace every individual
630 A H Alembic Chemical Works Co Ltd vs The Workmen   referred to
Therefore there is no reason for differing from the findings of the
Tribunal that there has been no change in usage adversely affecting the workers coming under item 8 and that there has been no retrenchment under item 10
632D 4 The 4th schedule relates to conditions of service for change of which the notice is to be given and section 9A requires the employer to give notice under that section to the workmen likely to be affected by such
change
The word affected  in the circumstances could only refer to the workers being adversely affected and unless it could be shown that the abolition of one department has adversely affected the workers it cannot be brought under item 11
631 A C The question whether the prolonged and detailed discussion between the parties was a substantial compliance with the provisions of section 9A not decided633E 5 But the non payment of wages in the circumstances of this case amounts to an alteration in the conditions of service and the fact that the scheme was introduced before the reference under section 10 was made does not bar an application under section 33A
The tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that this alteration in the conditions of service could not have been made without the notice under section 9A 634 C D 635 B C 626 a The applications in this case were not for wages due for the month of September but for October
634E b The refusal to pay wages was not a solitary instance in respect of which an application could have been made under section 33C it was a continued refusal and the cause of action arises de die in diem
If the refusal of the workers to work under reorganisation scheme is justified then the refusal by management to pay unless they work under the reorganisation scheme would amount to alteration of the conditions of service of Workers
634 G H c Even if an application had been made under section 33C the whole scheme would have been considered and it is not fair at this distance of time to drive the workers to file application under that section the procedure for which would be the same as under section 33A merely on the ground that the introduction of the scheme had taken place before the reference to the adjudication was made
636 B C d The Tribunal had found that the reorganisation scheme had rendered some workers surplus that the scheme had seriously prejudiced
the workers and that the apprehension of the workers that the reorganisation would result in some members of the staff becoming surplus had come true
635 A B North Brooke Jute Co Ltd  National Coal Co vs L P Dave  Shama Biscuit Co vs Their Workmen  referred to  Ram Nath Koeri vs Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills  Ors  approved
e If all the evidence which was let in in the main reference were available to the Tribunal which decided the applications of the workers the result might have been different
But it could not be said that the Tribunal is wrong in having proceeded to dispose of the matter in the way it did
636 A D