Sinha, J. - (1.)This is an application wherein there are 44 petitioners previously employed by Messrs. Rallis India Ltd., formerly known as Messrs. Railis Brothers Limited, together with Rallis India Limited Employees' Union.
(2.)The facts are shortly as follows: The said Company is a very well-known concern carrying on business in Calcutta for many years past. At one time they were employing more than 600 workmen in their Calcutta branch. From 1953 onwards, the Company found their Calcutta concern running at a loss. Sometime in April 1954, the Company retrenched some of the employees in its Calcutta establishment as well as at Kantapukur, Cossipore and some other out-stations. The retrenchment, however, was strongly opposed and had to be abandoned. Ultimately, in 1955 the Board of Directors finally decided to close the Calcutta establishment entirely with effect from 31-5-1955. At this stage, however, the Minister for Labour. West Bengal intervened and the Board of Directors agreed to give effect to a scheme, the foundation of which was that all unprofitable activities were to be abandoned and only the minimum staff retained to continue departments which under present conditions could be expected to pay their way. This entailed, apart from the closure of the Cossipore and the up-country jute and seeds organisation, the entire cessation of trading in Jute and shellac and the closure of the printing press. The departments which were to be retained would be those trading in gunnies, cotton, bones, piece goods, machinery, general exports and imports and ancillary departments, e. g., accounts, shipping, etc. Under the scheme, the maximum clerical and subordinate staff which could be employed is 208. Although previous to this, conciliation proceedings had commenced, the matter was taken up at the ministerial level and there is on record correspondence between the Company and the Ministry of Labour negotiating the terms upon which the Company could be induced to carry on its business rather than entirely terminate it. In the background of these facts, it will be easier to understand the two notices served by the Company upon its workmen. The first is dated 5-2-1955 annexure 'D' to the petition, whereby it was announced that the entire Calcutta branch will be closed on and from 31-5-1955 and that the staff would be paid compensation, provident fund, retiring gratuity, etc. The second notice is dated 12-2-1955, which is annexure 'E' to the petition. This letter referred to the notice dated 5-2-1958 and mentioned that the Company was approached by the Ministry of Labour and it had been decided to retain certain employees comprising of 208 workmen, so that the employment of the remaining staff was to cease as previously notified on 31-5-1955. The selection was based on certain principles mentioned in the said annexure which, it is said, was submitted to the Minister and approved. Even with regard to these 208 employees, they were only to be retained on new terms of service to be agreed upon. The short reason was as follows:
(3.)The Company found it unprofitable to carry on business in its Calcutta establishment and its ancillaries, and it decided to close them altogether. This would have resulted in the mass dismissal of a large number of employees. The Government, therefore, took the matter in hand and induced the Company to continue its business in Calcutta, but upon such reduced scale and under such circumstances as would make it profitable for them to remain in business. The Company made it clear that it would be impossible to carry on the business unless they had liberty to choose their own avenue of business and to choose the number of men that they could employ. The nett result was that 208 workmen found employment but the others were thrown out. These workmen and their Union raised disputes which formed the subject-matter of conciliation proceedings. An application was made before this Court by 114 workmen upon the ground, that although conciliation proceedings had failed the disputes were not being referred to adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, not was Government giving any reasons therefor under Section 12 (5) of the said Act. That applies tion upon which a Rule was issued, was disposed of by my order dated 5-9-1955. A copy of the order is Annexure A-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by p. A. C. Pulo. I found that there could be no doubt that the Government had not referred the disputes for adjudication nor had it given any reason, it was represented, however, on behalf of Government that the question was still under consideration and in due time Government would either refer the matter to adjudication or give reasons for not referring the matter, if there was no reference. In view of this representation, I found no further utility in going on with the matter at that stage. What I said exactly was as follows:
"In view of this, I think that this application does not call for any further consideration except recording the admission by the State that the State Government has not considered the matter yet and when it cities so, it will give reasons and communicate them. It is to be expected! that it will do so within a reasonable time. It will then be open to the parties to move the Court in the way that they may be advised."