HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD. vs EMPkoYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD. Supreme Court, 07-09-1978
| Judge | DESAI,D.A. |
| Parties | HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.EMPkoYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD. |
| Date | 07 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | Appeal Civil 656 of 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
EMPkoYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/09/1978
BENCH:
DESAI, D.A.
BENCH:
DESAI, D.A.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1979 AIR 75 1979 SCR (1) 563
1979 SCC (2) 80
CITATOR INFO :
R 1980 SC1896 (142,143,147)
R 1985 SC 617 (3)
D 1985 SC1128 (9)
ACT:
Constitution of India 1950--Article 136-Scope of in
labour matters Article 43A-Eixplained-Participation of
workman in Managenuent.
Uttar Perdesh Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Workelrs
retrellcled on grounds of losses.-rrihullal found
retreluchllent unjustified-ordere reinstatement with back
wages Speeial leave refused regalding reinstatement-Employer
if could reopen at the time of hearing.
HEADNOTE:
Awarding full or partial back wages-Plinciples for
awarding Employee’s financial viability to pay baek wages-lf
could be a factor for not awarding full back wage,s.
The management (Appellant) retrenched 56 of its
worl;tnell alleging nonavailability of raw material to
ntilise the fnll installed capacity, power shcdding limiting
the working of the unit to 5 days a week and mounting
losses. As a result of negotiations between the parties, the
retrenched workmen were taken back in service. A few days
later, however, the workmen demanded revision of wage
scales, but the appellant pleaded inability to revise the
pay scales in view of the mounting losses. Thereafter, the
employer reternched 43 workmen.The dispute resulting out of
the retrenchment was referred to adjudication under section
4k of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Labour Court held that the real reason for
retrenchment was annoyance felt by the management when the
employees refused to agree to the terms oil settlement 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 Court’s view that the
retrenched workmen should be reinstated. This Court rejected
this prayer and limited the special leave to the question of
granting back wages to the retrenched workmen ordered to be
To continue reading
Request your trial