tain agencies. On June 23, 1961 the union s~t to the company its demands inter alia claiming (a) that the retrenchment must be fully justified, and (b) that transfer of service to other places in the company's organisation should be offered to those who are willi,ng to accept such transfer. Neither in its letter to the Deputy Commissioner nor in the conciliation proceedings, nor in the demands of the union disputed the fact that the company had taken the said policy decision and that the decision would result in retrenchment. Indeed, the said demands accepted the policy decision but called upon the company to pay certain amounts to those retrenched, to retrench only to the extent fully justified and to offer transfer to those retrenched. On June 28, 1961 the company sent· its comments on the union's demands stating inter alia that (1) the company would pay one month's wages in lieu of notice as also retrenchment compensation, (2) that 25 permanent and 1 7 temporary employees would be retrenched with effect from July 1, 1961, (3) that re-employment of retrenched workmen would be governed by the provisions of sec. 25H, and (4) that the company's policy being to recruit local persons at its branches, transfer from one place to another had not been frequently resorted by the company but the company would consider transfer of the employees concerned after employees retrenched at other branches had first been absorbed. On June 29, 1961 the company gave the notice of retrenchment to the employees concerned, also a notice to the Commissioner of Labour and the Conciliation Officer under sec. 25F( c), paid one month's wages to the employees concerned in lieu of notice and also retrenchment compensation. The State Government by its order dat,~d July 31, 1961 referred for adjudication to the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, the question whether retrenchment of the said 52 employees was justified and to what relief, if any, they were entitled.
