Case: The Cachar Chah Sramik Union Silchar, Assam Vs. The Management Of The Tea Estate Of Cachar,Assam

be given by the employer and workmen.Notice of termination of employment, whether by Manager or by worker, shall be given equal to the wage-period of the worker concerned.Provided that-(a) the Manager may terminate the employment of a worker forthwith and pay his wages for the wage-period (equivalent to his average earnings over the preceding period of three months) in lieu of notice.(b) Notice of termination of employment shall be necessary only in case of permanent workers and not in the case of outside or temporary workers except in so far is laid down in any agreement entered into between the Manager and such outside or temporary workers.(c) ..............................(d) Where the employment of any worker is terminated the wages earned by him and other dues, if any, shall be paid before the expiry of the second working day on which his employment is terminated................................"The Tribunal has found that there was no victimisation on unfair labour practice or mala fide on the part of the management in closing the gardens or in making the retrenchment. Mr. Aggarwala on behalf of the appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal on this point, but learned Counsel argued that even if the management was justified, the workmen were entitled to payment of compensation according to the scale laid down in S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was conceded by learned Counsel that Ch. VA which contains S. 25F came into force on October 24, 1953 by amending Act 43 of 1953 and the retrenchment in the present case was effected long before that date. It was, however, contended that the principle embodied in S. 25F should be applied in the present case. It was said that by enacting Ch. VA the legislature was merely recognising the practice of payment of compensation by Labour Tribunal before the date of the amendment and the legislature decided, by the amendment, to standardise the payment of compensation by prescribing a statutory rule in that behalf (See Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1960) 2 SCR 32 at p. 42: (AIR 1960 SC 251 at p. 256). There is substance in the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant and the Tribunal has also applied this principle in granting compensation to the retrenched workmen even though the case was not attracted by S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the Tribunal has taken the view that one weeks wages for every four months of unemployment was adequate compensation. The contention of the appellant is that the compensation should have been awarded on the scale laid down in S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. We are unable to accept this argument as correct.As pointed out by this Court in (1960) 2 SCR 32 at p. 42: (AIR 1960 SC 251 at p. 256), Industrial Tribunal had been awarding compensation even before the enactment of S. 25F but there was no uniformity or certainty in the matter and in determining the amount of compensation the Tribunals considered a variety of relevant factors. It is manifest that in determining the amount of compensation the Tribunals exercised complete discretion and took into account whatever factors they considered relevant.In the present case, the Tribunal has estimated the amount of compensation as one weeks wages for every four months of unemployment and it is not shown on behalf of the appellant that in making this estimate the Tribunal has committed any error of law or applied any wrong principle.7. As regards the compensation to retrenched workmen, the Tribunal has stated in para 185 of the Award that the amenities granted to them included undisturbed possession of residential quarters and khet lands. They were also granted medical relief, fuel and other forest produce even during the period of suspension of work. The Tribunal did not attempt to evaluate accurately the pecuniary value of all these concessions but it has expressed the view that the value of these concessions would be roughly equal to one weeks wages for every four months of unemployment and therefore the retrenched workmen were not entitled to any compensation in cash apart from any right to wages in lieu of a weeks notice under Cl. 9 of the Standing Orders. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Aggarwala said that the retrenched workmen were entitled to get a larger amount of compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal.The quantum of compensation is, however, a matter primarily for the Tribunal to estimate and it is not open to this Court to go into this question unless it is shown that Tribunal has committed any error of law or legal principle in deciding it.As regards the workmen who were subjected to short hours of work, the Tribunal has observed that they have been granted ex gratia payments which were, in several cases in excess of the total loss of wages by reason of the revision of the daily wages under the notification of February 9, 1953 under the Minimum Wages Act. On behalf of the appellant reference was made by Mr. Aggarwala to the deposition of Mr. R. M. Bipan at page 97, Part-I that the ex gratia payment compensated merely for the minimum wages cut and not the loss to labour by the short work-week. But the Tribunal having examined the entire evidence reached the conclusion that the ex gratia payment was in several cases in excess of total loss of remuneration on account of the notification under the Minimum Wages Act.There is also undisputed evidence in this case to show that even in normal times short hours had to be imposed by employers upto a period of three days in a week in Cachar tea gardens. In this state of facts it is not possible for us to hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the ex gratia payment made by the management was sufficient compensation to the workmen who were not retrenched outright but who were put on short hours of work.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The Tribunal has found that there was no victimisation on unfair labour practice or mala fide on the part of the management in closing the gardens or in making the retrenchment. Mr.Aggarwala on behalf of the appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal on this point, but learned Counsel argued that even if the management was justified, the workmen were entitled to payment of compensation according to the scale laid down in S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was conceded by learned Counsel that Ch. VA which contains S. 25F came into force on October 24, 1953 by amending Act 43 of 1953 and the retrenchment in the present case was effected long before that date. It was, however, contended that the principle embodied in S. 25F should be applied in the present case. It was said that by enacting Ch. VA the legislature was merely recognising the practice of payment of compensation by Labour Tribunal before the date of the amendment and the legislature decided, by the amendment, to standardise the payment of compensation by prescribing a statutory rule in that behalf (See Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1960) 2 SCR 32   at p. 42: (AIR 1960 SC 251  at p. 256).There is substance in the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant and the Tribunal has also applied this principle in granting compensation to the retrenched workmen even though the case was not attracted by S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the Tribunal has taken the view that one weeks wages for every four months of unemployment was adequate compensation. The contention of the appellant is that the compensation should have been awarded on the scale laid down in S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. We are unable to accept this argument as correct.As pointed out by this Court in (1960) 2 SCR 32   at p. 42: (AIR 1960 SC 251  at p. 256), Industrial Tribunal had been awarding compensation even before the enactment of S. 25F but there was no uniformity or certainty in the matter and in determining the amount of compensation the Tribunals considered a variety of relevant factors. It is manifest that in determining the amount of compensation the Tribunals exercised complete discretion and took into account whatever factors they considered relevant.In the present case, the Tribunal has estimated the amount of compensation as one weeks wages for every four months of unemployment and it is not shown on behalf of the appellant that in making this estimate the Tribunal has committed any error of law or applied any wrongprinciple.7. As regards the compensation to retrenched workmen, the Tribunal has stated in para 185 of the Award that the amenities granted to them included undisturbed possession of residential quarters and khet lands. They were also granted medical relief, fuel and other forest produce even during the period of suspension of work. The Tribunal did not attempt to evaluate accurately the pecuniary value of all these concessions but it has expressed the view that the value of these concessions would be roughly equal to one weeks wages for every four months of unemployment and therefore the retrenched workmen were not entitled to any compensation in cash apart from any right to wages in lieu of a weeks notice under Cl. 9 of the Standing Orders. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Aggarwala said that the retrenched workmen were entitled to get a larger amount of compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal.The quantum of compensation is, however, a matter primarily for the Tribunal to estimate and it is not open to this Court to go into this question unless it is shown that Tribunal has committed any error of law or legal principle in deciding it.As regards the workmen who were subjected to short hours of work, the Tribunal has observed that they have been granted ex gratia payments which were, in several cases in excess of the total loss of wages by reason of the revision of the daily wages under the notification of February 9, 1953 under the Minimum Wages Act. On behalf of the appellant reference was made by Mr. Aggarwala to the deposition of Mr. R. M. Bipan at page 97,that the ex gratia payment compensated merely for the minimum wages cut and not the loss to labour by the shortBut the Tribunal having examined the entire evidence reached the conclusion that the ex gratia payment was in several cases in excess of total loss of remuneration on account of the notification under the Minimum Wages Act.There is also undisputed evidence in this case to show that even in normal times short hours had to be imposed by employers upto a period of three days in a week in Cachar tea gardens. In this state of facts it is not possible for us to hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the ex gratia payment made by the management was sufficient compensation to the workmen who were not retrenched outright but who were put on short hours of work.