Case: Workmen Of The Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Compan Vs. Management Of The Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd

Admittedly, the Company is an associate of the Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd., and the main business carried on by the Company is that of purchasing tobacco of all varieties and qualities, stemming, grading and packing of tobacco and supplying it to the Imperial Tobacco Company as well as exporting the tobacco to various foreign countries in the world. The Company has been carrying on this business for about 40 years and handles almost 35 per cent of the tobacco grown in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the work of stemming, grading and packing tobacco, the Company has two factories, one at Anaparty in East Godavary District, and the other at Chirala in Guntur District. In connection with this business, the Company, in the year 1962, was maintaining 21 depots where, according to the workmen, the appellants, the Company was carrying on the work of collecting tobacco though the Companys case was that the principal work done at these depots was that of handling the tobacco purchased at other places and only included the work of purchasing tobacco on a small scale.2. On 16th August, 1963, the Company gave a notice to the Union of the appellant workmen that 8 out of 21 depots mentioned therein would be closed down with effect from 30th September, 1963. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised by the workmen which related to the closure of these 8 depots, as well as to a number of other demands, including revision of basic wages and dearness allowance, additional discomfort allowance, etc. The State Government, by its order dated 14th November, 1963, referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. The first issue, which was referred for adjudication, was as followsfar the demands no the union, viz., (i) that no depot which worked during 1962 season should be closed, and (ii) that no workman who worked in 1962 season should be retrenched are justified?There were ten other issues, but we need not reproduce them, as we are not concerned with them in this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
4. The decision given by the Tribunal in the interim award, holding that the reference covered by issue No.1 was not competent, has been challenged by learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that the closure of a depot does not amount to closure of business in law and, since the same business was continued by the Company at atleast 13 other depots, the closure of the 8 depots in question wasclosure of the 8 depots by the Company, even if it is held not to amount to closure of business of the Company, cannot be interfered with by an Industrial Tribunal if, in fact that closure was genuine and real.The closure may be treated as stoppage of part of the activity or business of the Company. Such stoppage of part of a business is an act of management which is entirely in the discretion of the Company carrying on the business. No Industrial Tribunal, even in a reference under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, can interfere with discretion exercised in such a matter and can have any power to direct a Company to continue a part of the business which the Company has decided to shut down. We cannot possibly accept the submission made on behalf of the appellants that a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act has power to issue orders directing a Company to reopen a closed depot or branch, if the Company, in fact, closes it down.In these circumstances, it is clear that the demand contained in the first part of Issue No. 1 was beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and was incorrectly referred for adjudication to it by the State Government.7. Of course, if a Company closes down a branch or a depot, the question can always arise as to the relief to which the workmen of that branch or depot are entitled and if such a question arises and becomes the subject-matter of an industrial dispute, an Industrial Tribunal will be fully competent to adjudicate on it.It is unfortunate that, in this case, when dealing with the preliminary issue, the Tribunal expressed its decision in the interim award in general words, holding that Issue No. 1 as a whole was beyond its jurisdiction. If the reasoning in the interim award is taken into account, it is clear that the Tribunal on that reasoning only came to the conclusion that it was not competent to direct reopening of the 8 depots which had been closed, so that the Tribunal should have held that the first part of Issue No. 1 only was outside its jurisdiction.8. So far as the second part of that issue is concerned, as we have said above it was competent for the Tribunal to go into it and decide whether the claim of the workmen that they should not be retrenched wasopinion expressed by the Court was that, though there is discharge of workmen both when there is retrenchment and closure of business, the compensation is to be awarded under the law, not for discharge as such but for discharge on retrenchment, and if, as is conceded, retrenchment means in ordinary parlance discharge of the surplus, it cannot include discharge on closure ofthen, as we have indicated above, Section 25FF and Section 25FFF have been added in the Industrial Disputes Act, and the latter section specially lays down what rights a workman has when an undertaking is closed down. In a case where a dispute may arise as to whether workmen discharged are entitled to compensation under Section 25F or Sec. 25FFF, it may become necessary to decide whether the closure, as a result of which the services have been dispensed with, amounts to a closure in law or not. In the case before us, it was admitted by learned counsel for both parties that the workmen, who have been discharged as a result of the closure of the 8 depots of the Company, have all been paid retrenchment compensation at the higher rate laid down in Section 25F, so that, in this case, it is not necessary to decide the point raised on behalf of the workmen.9. In connection with the second part of issue No. 1, it was also urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the business, which was being carried on at the 8 depots, had not in fact been closed down and had merely been transferred to buying points situated in and around the closed depots, including two new buying points established by the Company after the closure of these 8 depots. The argument was that the workmen were old employees who had served the Company for a long time and were entitled to certain benefits as a result of that long service. The Company closed these 8 depots mala fide with the object of depriving the workmen of those benefits and merely altered the nature of the business by closing the depots and carrying on the same business at the buying points. This point urged by learned counsel cannot, however, be accepted in view of the findings of fact recorded by Tribunal.10. The Tribunal examined in detail the allegations made on behalf of the workmen in this respect. In fact, the interim award mentions that, for the purpose of deciding the preliminary issue and the first issue, evidence was recorded by the Tribunal for more than a week and arguments of Advocates of the parties were heard for even a longer period. After examining the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the stoppage of the work at the depots was genuine and that the work which was being carried on at the depots had not been transferred to the buying points established by the Company. The closure of the business at the depots was necessitated by reasons of expediency inasmuch as the Company had to reduce its purchases in its quest for quality and its desire to run the business economically. The principal work, which used to be done at the depots, was not that of purchasing tobacco, but of handling it and that work was not transferred at all to any buying point.The Tribunal, thus, came to the finding that the closure of these depots was real and genuine and that the suggestion of the appellants that only a device was adopted of carrying on the same business in a different manner had no force at all. If the same business had been continued, though under a different guise, the claim of the workmen not to be retrenched could possibly be considered by the Tribunal; but, on the finding that there was a genuine closure of the business that used to be carried on at the depots, no question could arise of the retrenchment being set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal could not ask the Company to re-employ or reinstate the workmen, because there was no business for which the workmen could be required. In these circumstances all that the workmen could claim was compensation for loss of their service and in that respect, as we have indicated above, the workmen have received adequate compensation.