Case: The Motor Transport Controller, Maharashtra State, Bomb Vs. Provincial Rashtriya Motor Kamgar Union,Nagpur And Ors

that the Governments action in abolishing posts and terminating services of employees was not bad because of contravention of S. 25F (b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, questioned before us. We have, therefore, not examined the correctness or otherwise of these conclusions and shall dispose of the appeal on the basis that the decisions on these points are correct.6. The first contention urged in support of the appeal is that the High Court was wrong in thinking that in ordering the abolition of posts and terminating the services of employees in those posts the Government had contravened the provisions of S. 31 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. That section is in these words:"31. (1) If an employer intends to effect a change in any standing orders settled under S. 30 or in respect of any industrial matter mentioned in Schedule II, he shall give fourteen days notice of such intention in the prescribed form to the representative of employees.(2) The employer shall send a copy of the notice to the Labour Commissioner, Labour Officer and to such other person as may be prescribed and shall also affix a copy of the notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the employees affected by the proposed change are employed and at such other places as may be specially directed by the proposed change are employed and at such other places as may be specially directed by the Labour Commissioner in any case.(3) On receipt of such notice the representative of employees concerned shall negotiate with the employers."7. Schedule II of this Act mentions a number of matters. The first of which is"Reduction intended to be of permanent or semi permanent character in the number of persons employed or to be employed not due to force majeure."The argument that prevailed in the High Court was that abolition of all posts amounted to permanent reduction within the meaning of this Item in Schedule II. If that be correct it would necessarily follow that the Government had to observe the procedure prescribed in S. 31. Admittedly, that was not done.The short question, therefore, is whether the abolition of all posts of an establishment amount to reduction of posts. In our opinion, the ward reduction can only be used when something is left after reduction. To speak of abolition as a reduction of the whole thing does not sound sensible or reasonable. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the term "reduction in the number of persons employed or to be employed" as mentioned in Item I of Schedule II covers abolition of all posts. In our opinion, the Government Order in abolishing the posts and terminating the services of the employees did not amount to a change within the meaning of S. 31 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. The Government was, therefore, not required to follow the procedure mentioned in S. 31.8. This brings us to the question about the validity of the proviso to sub-cl. (3) of cl. 9 of the Order. As already indicated the workmens contention was that the proviso contravened the provisions of S. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. That section contained a provision that on transfer or re-employment of any workman in consequence of reconstitution, amalgamation or dissolution by any body corporate, co-operative society or any commercal undertaking or industrial undertaking the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer or re-employment shall not be less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer or re-employment. it was apparently apprehended by the workmen that though sub-cl. (3) of cl. 9 of the Order did state definitely that the right of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to determine or vary the conditions of service of any person who is continued in the service of the corporation was subject to the provisions of S. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, advantage might be taken of the proviso to the sub-clause, which seems at least at first sight to suggest that with the approval of the Central Government the conditions of service of a workman might be varied to his disadvantage notwithstanding the provisions of S. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. We are informed however that there has been no such variation. The petition itself did not contain any specific assertion that there had been any variation to the disadvantage of any workman. Only an apprehension that there might be a change in future was expressed. In the counter affidavit the Government stated that the Order passed in the notices issued clearly gave a guarantee that the conditions of service will not be changed. If there was any reason to think that there had been any change in any conditions of service or that in the immediate future there was any likelihood of any such change being made on the strength of the impugned proviso it would have been necessary for us to examine the question about the validity of this proviso. As however no change appears to have been made and it does not appear that there was any apprehension of any change being made in the immediate future, we have thought it desirable to leave this question open - particularly in view of the fact that the workmen were not represented before us in this appeal. We have, therefore, not heard full arguments on this question from the learned Counsel for the appellant.9. The decision of the High Court that the proviso is bad is therefore set side and the question is left open for decision if and when it becomes really necessary to do so. In view of our decision that the High Court erred in thinking that S. 31 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act had to be applied the High Courts order quashing the abolition of posts and the notices of termination cannot be sustained.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion, the ward reduction can only be used when something is left after reduction. To speak of abolition as a reduction of the whole thing does not sound sensible or reasonable. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the term "reduction in the number of persons employed or to be employed" as mentioned in Item I of Schedule II covers abolition of all posts. In our opinion, the Government Order in abolishing the posts and terminating the services of the employees did not amount to a change within the meaning of S. 31 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. The Government was, therefore, not required to follow the procedure mentioned in S.already indicated the workmens contention was that the proviso contravened the provisions of S. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. That section contained a provision that on transfer or re-employment of any workman in consequence of reconstitution, amalgamation or dissolution by any body corporate, co-operative society or any commercal undertaking or industrial undertaking the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer or re-employment shall not be less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer or re-employment. it was apparently apprehended by the workmen that though sub-cl.(3) of cl. 9 of theOrder did state definitely that the right of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to determine or vary the conditions of service of any person who is continued in the service of the corporation was subject to the provisions of S. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, advantage might be taken of the proviso to the sub-clause, which seems at least at first sight to suggest that with the approval of the Central Government the conditions of service of a workman might be varied to his disadvantage notwithstanding the provisions of S. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. We are informed however that there has been no such variation. The petition itself did not contain any specific assertion that there had been any variation to the disadvantage of any workman. Only an apprehension that there might be a change in future was expressed. In the counter affidavit the Government stated that the Order passed in the notices issued clearly gave a guarantee that the conditions of service will not be changed. If there was any reason to think that there had been any change in any conditions of service or that in the immediate future there was any likelihood of any such change being made on the strength of the impugned proviso it would have been necessary for us to examine the question about the validity of this proviso. As however no change appears to have been made and it does not appear that there was any apprehension of any change being made in the immediate future, we have thought it desirable to leave this question open - particularly in view of the fact that the workmen were not represented before us in this appeal. We have, therefore, not heard full arguments on this question from the learned Counsel for theview of our decision that the High Court erred in thinking that S. 31 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act had to be applied the High Courts order quashing the abolition of posts and the notices of termination cannot becorrectness of the High Courts decision that the order of the 27th May 1961 did not violate S.47A of the Actwas not challenged before us. Nor was the High Courts decision that the Governments action in abolishing posts and terminating services of employees was not bad because of contravention of S. 25F (b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, questioned before us. We have, therefore, not examined the correctness or otherwise of these conclusions and shall dispose of the appeal on the basis that the decisions on these points are correct.The decision of the High Court that the proviso is bad is therefore set side and the question is left open for decision if and when it becomes really necessary to do so.