THE CACHAR CHAH SRAMIK UNION SILCHAR, ASSAM A v. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TEA ESTATE OF CACHAR, ASSAM

Upon these rival contentions the Industrial Tribunal held, in the first place, that the financial crisis was genuine and was not a result of any manipulation and that the management was entitled E under cl. 8(a)(i) and (iii) of the Standing Orders to lay off the workmen for an indefinite period. The Tribunal further held that the management was also entitled to retrench workmen under cl. 9 of the Standing Orders. The Tribunal considered that even if the lay off and retrenchment were bona fide and justified, the workmen were entitled to a reasonable compensation and fixed the F quantum of compensation at the rate of one week's pay for every four months of unemployment. Finally the Tribunal held that the provision of khet land and other amenities like housing and medical facilities available to the workmen should be taken to adequately represent one week's wages. After laying down these principles tlie Industrial Tribunal examined the case of each indi- G victual garden and awarded compensation in some cases while refus- ing to grant any compensation in others. On behalf of the appellant-Union Mr. Aggarwala submitted, in the first place, that cl. 8(a) of the Standing Orders had no appli cation to the present case and the Tribunal was not justified in H holding that the financial difficulty facing the tea estates was a matter beyond the control of the management, and the workmen • ~ ' -!'. " • • c. c. s. UNION V. MANAGEMENT (Ramas1vami, J.) 349 A could not, therefore, be laid off by the management under this clause. The relevant portion of cl. 8 reads as follows : • B "Closing and re-opening of sections of the industrial establishments, and temporary stoppages of work, and the rights and liabilities of the employer and workmen arising therefrom. (a) (i) The manager may at any time in the event of lire, catastrophe, break Gown of machinery, stoppage of power or supply, epidemic, civil commotion, strike, extreme climate conditions or other causes beyond his control, close down either the factory or field work or both wilhout notice. • • • n (iii) In cases where workmen are laid off for short periods on account of failure of plant or a temporary curtailment of production, the period of unemployment shall be treated as compulsory leave either with or with out pay, as the case may be; when, however workmen have to be laid off for an indefinitely long period their services may be terminated after giving them due notice or pay in lieu thereof." E In support of this argument Mr. Aggarwala referred to the decision of this Court in Workme11 of Dewan Tea Estate v. Their Manage- ment('). But the ratio of that decision has no application to the In Work present case in which the material facts are different. men of Dewan Tea Estaie v. Their Management(') there was no sudden slump in the price of tea but there was difficulty experienced 11 by the management in obtaining financial facilities from banks. It was an individual case of management experiencing financial diffi culty, and it was, therefore, held by this Court that the stoppage of financial assistance will not fall within the phrase "stoppage of power or supply" in cl. 8(a)(i) of the Standing Orders. It was also pointed out in that case that there was no evidence produced on <G behalf of the management to substantiate its plea of non-availability of finance. There was also no evidence on the record to justify the assumption of the management that the financial difficulty faced by it was beyond its control. The material facts in the present It has been found by the Industrial Tribnnal case are different. that there was a sudden slump in the price of tea in the world H markets, that the recession of prices of tea commenced in the middle of J 951 and continued during the whole of 1952 for a (1) [l.964] s s.c.R. 548. 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] 2 S.C.R. A ·period of about 18 months. The low level of prices reached in May, 1952, was unprecedented. The Tribunal has also found that the economic crisis of the tea industry in Cachar region was real and was caused by reasons beyond the control of the manage In our opinion, the lai;t part of cl. 8(a)(i) ment of the tea estates. which refers to "other causes beyond his control" would cover a case of sudden slump in the world market and the consequent finan- cial difficulties of the tea estates. We accordingly hold that the lay off in the present case was justified by cl. 8(a)(i) and (iii) of the Standing Orders and the argument of Mr. Aggarwala on this aspect of the case is not warranted. As regards retrenchment, we are satisfied that the manage- c ment had also the additional power of retrenching workmen under cl. 9 of the Standing Orders which reads as follows : "Termination of employment and notice thereof to 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 pre ceding 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 insofar as is laid down in ap.y agreement entered into between the Manager and such outside or temporary workers. (c) ..................................... . (d) Where the employment of any worker is termi nated 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. ,, ........................................... D E F G The Tribunal has found that there was no victimisation or unfair the manage labour practice or mala fide on ment. Mr. Aggarwala on behalf of the appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal on this point, but learned Counsel in making the gardens or in closing the part retrencll.- H r • c. c. s. UNION v. MANAGEMENT (Ramaswami, J.) 351 B c A . 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 con ceded 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 It was embodied in s. 25 F should be applied in the present case. said that by enacting Ch. VA the legislature was merely recognis ing the practice of payment of compensation by Labour Tribunals before the date of the amendment and the legislature decided, by the amendment, to standardise the payn; ient of compensation by prescribing a statutory rule in that behalf (See The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and another)('). There is subs tance in the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant and the Tribunal has also applied this principle in granting compensa tion to the retrenched workmen even though the case was not attracted by s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the Tribu nal has taken the view that one week's 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 E by this Court in The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and another('), Industrial Tribunals had been awarding compen sation even before the enactment of s. 25F but there was no uni formity or certainty in the matter and in determining the amount of compensation the Tribunals considered a variety of relevant It is manifest that in determining the amount of compen- factors. sation the Tribunals exerdised 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 week's 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. F D G As regards the compensation to retrenched workmen, the Tri bunal has stated in para 135 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 H of work. The Tribunal did not attempt to evaluate accurately the pecuniary value of all these concessions but it has expressed the (I) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 32 at p. 42. L2Sup CT /66-9 J •• ' 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] 2 S.C.R. B view that the value of these concessions would be roughly equal to A one week's• wages for every four months of unemployment and therefore the retrenched workmen were not entitled to any com- . pensation in cash apart from any right to wages in lieu of a week's 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 the Tribu- nal 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 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 this state of facts it is not possible for in Cachar tea gardens. us to hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the ex gratia payment made by the management was sufficient com pensation to the workmen who were not retrenched outright but who were put on short hours of work. for the · D c E F For the reasons expressed we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. We do not propose to pass any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed; ·e' am;