JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 1st February, 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, in Reference (II) No. 189 of 1994 directing the petitioner company to reinstate the 1st respondent workman with continuity of service and backwages with effect from 9th June, 1975. 2.This facts relevant for this judgment may first be set out. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of steel balls for industrial use. The 1st respondent workman was working with the petitioner company as a wireman/electrician. According to the petitioner in the year 1975 there was acute recession and glut in the market for the petitioner's products and shortage of power and electrical energy which substantially affected the volume of manufacturing activities and business and rendered a sizeable number of work force surplus to the requirements of the petitioner company. In these compelling circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to take a business decision to reduce the surplus number of workmen from various departments and categories so as to utilise the production facilities and provide man day's work to workmen and to thereby overcome the difficult period which the company was passing through during the relevant period. On 9th May, 1975, the petitioner company offered to the workmen a voluntary scheme for seperation with extra monetary benefits. In response to the said scheme, as may as 17 permanent workmen accepted the voluntary seperation scheme. 3.It is further the case of the petitioner that after carefully assessing the impact of the voluntary retirement, the petitioner found the necessity of reduction of some more permanent workmen and accordingly decided to retrench the junior-most workman/electrician in the Electrical department, one junior-most workman from the Heat Treatment department and two junior-most workmen from the Tool Room department. Accordingly on 1st June, 1975, a seniority list of workmen categorywise was put up on the notice board of the petitioner's factory in accordance with Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. According to the petitioner company, the 1st respondent who was the juniormost wireman/electrician was retrenched on 9th June, 1975 after being offered a letter of retrenchment accompanied by retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay as required under the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the petitioner company, the 1st respondent who was the juniormost wireman/electrician was retrenched on 9th June, 1975 after being offered a letter of retrenchment accompanied by retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay as required under the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner maintains that the workman refused to accept the notice, and also refused to accept the retrenchment compensation and notice pay and this was duly recorded by the company. Immediately thereafter the petitioner company by its letter dated 12th June, 1975 recorded the factum of offering to the workman retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay in the presence of two witnesses during his working hours on 9th June, 1975 prior to serving retrenchment order upon him. The said letter was replied to by the workman alleging that his services were terminated as he had decided alongwith other workmen to join the trade union. It was however not alleged or claimed that he was not offered retrenchment compensation and notice pay. The workman raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred to Industrial tribunal pursuant to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 1980. 4.In his statement of claim the workman inter alia pleaded that the only reason to terminate his services was his union activity and the alleged retrenchment was a guise for dismissal, that the reasons advanced by the company to terminate his services were false and mala fide, that there was in fact no surplusage and lastly that the company had not followed while retrenching, the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The company's reply was that retrenchment was bona fide and in accordance with law, that the retrenchment was necessitated by decline in sale of company's products and shortage of electricity supply, that as a matter of business policy it had decided to retrench the surplus workmen and that the company had complied with the provisions of section 25-F. In support of its reply, the company produced audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts and examined three witnesses whereas the workman examined himself. 5.The tribunal held that the balance sheets show that the company was increasing its activities, that the figures in 1974 in respect of electricity charges, raw material charges, depreciation on assets and the proposed dividend were higher than 1973 and thus the company's position was sound, that due to the union activities the company has resorted to retrenchment and terminated the services of the workman. Next the tribunal held that the company has failed to show that it offered retrenchment compensation and notice pay at the time of retrenchment and hence there was violation of section 25-F of the Act. The tribunal held that therefore the retrenchment was illegal and directed reinstatement of the workman with backwages. 6.Counsel for the company strenuously urged that the decision to retrench the workmen was a business decision taken by the company due to decline in production and sales because of shortage of electricity supply. It is within the managerial discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. So long that is done bona fide it is not competent for the tribunal to question its propriety. Counsel also urged that the company had produced evidence to show that there was compliance with section 25-F which was not considered by the tribunal and findings of the tribunal were without legal evidence and based on mere surmises and therefore perverse. The contention on behalf of the workman, on the other hand, was that the scope of interference by the High Court in a certiorari petition was limited and only on certain well organised grounds and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the tribunal. 7.First serious infirmity in the decision of the tribunal arises from its complete misconception about the company's case in regard to re-organisation of its business. The tribunal relying upon the balance sheets observed that the company's financial position was sound and therefrom drew an inference that the retrenchment was due to union activity of the workman. As a matter of fact the company's case was that its production and sales had gone down on account of shortage of electricity supply. Moreover there was acute recession and glut in the market for the company's products and therefore the company was compelled to take a business decision to reduce the work force. As a matter of fact the company's case was that its production and sales had gone down on account of shortage of electricity supply. Moreover there was acute recession and glut in the market for the company's products and therefore the company was compelled to take a business decision to reduce the work force. The company led evidence to show that due to abnormal conditions, the company was unable to provide work to its then existing complement of workmen. As the work position of the company did not improve throughout the first half of 1975, the company decided to reduce surplus number of workmen on account of non-availability of work. However, the company before taking recourse to legal remedy by retrenching surplus number of workmen decided to announce time bound voluntary retirement scheme with the hope that adequate number of workmen would willingly opt for voluntary retirement scheme. Accordingly the voluntary retirement scheme was announced and 17 workmen had opted for the voluntary retirement scheme. Even after the 17 workmen from various departments left the services of the company under the voluntary retirement scheme as the company genuinely felt the need and urgency for further reduction of workmen in various categories in various departments, it decided to retrench 4 more workmen including the respondent workman. The balance sheets produced by the company lend support to the aforesaid version given by the company's witnesses. The tribunal has totally neglected dealing with this evidence. All that has been said by the tribunal is that the figures of production etc., for the year 1974 were higher than figures for 1973 and on this basis the tribunal straightaway jumped to the conclusion that termination must be due to alleged union activity of the workman. It is pertinent to note that the assumption of the tribunal that there was an increase in production in 1974 is not borne out by the record. On the other hand, it is seen from the balance sheets of the company that there was fall in production during the relevant period. It is well settled principle in industrial law that it is within the managerial discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. So long as that is done bona fide it is not competent of the tribunal to question its propriety. It is well settled principle in industrial law that it is within the managerial discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. So long as that is done bona fide it is not competent of the tribunal to question its propriety. If the scheme for such re-organisation results in surplusage of employees no employer is expected to carry the burden of such economic dead weight and retrenchment has to be accepted as inevitable, however, unfortunate it is so long it is not vitiated by consideration of victimisation or unfair labour practice. (D. Macropollo and Co. Private Ltd. v. D. Macropollo and Co. Private Ltd. Employees,' Union and others)1, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 1012, (Workmen of Subong Tea Estate v. The Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate)2, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 420, (M/s. Parry and Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and others)3, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1334. 8.In the instant case, the company has led evidence that there was recession in the market for its products. It has also come in evidence that due to shortage of electrical energy volume of manufacturing activities of the company was affected. It is seen from the balance sheets for the relevant years that the production of the company has gone down during the relevant period. It is pertinent to note that even the workman himself admitted in his letter dated 28th June, 1975 that there was power shortage at the relevant time. Considering the evidence produced by the company, it is difficult to hold that the retrenchment was capricious or without rhyme or reason. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the workman that retrenchment amounted to vicitimisation of the workman. As indicated earlier, voluntary seperation scheme was offered by the company which was accepted by 17 workmen and since the company felt the need to further reduce the work force, they decided to retrench 4 juniormost workmen working in different categories including the respondent workman. 9.As far as compliance with section 25-F is concerned, the tribunal has not even cared to discuss the evidence produced on record. It is the case of the management that on 9th June, 1975, the workman was working in the night shift. He was served with notice of retrenchment accompanied by retrenchment compensation and notice pay. 9.As far as compliance with section 25-F is concerned, the tribunal has not even cared to discuss the evidence produced on record. It is the case of the management that on 9th June, 1975, the workman was working in the night shift. He was served with notice of retrenchment accompanied by retrenchment compensation and notice pay. The company has led evidence to show that the workman refused to accept the notice as well as statutory compensation and notice pay. This fact was specifically recorded by the management's letter dated 12th June, 1975 addressed to the 1st respondent. In reply letter dated 28th June, 1975, the 1st respondent did not even allege that he was not offered retrenchment compensation and notice pay. The company's case is duly established by the evidence of the security officer, Mr. Pawar. There is no consideration of this evidence by the tribunal. It has merely stated that the company has failed to establish that there was compliance with section 25-F. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have carefully gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence and I am completely satisfied that the company had fulfilled the requirements of section 25-F. 10.Before parting with the case, it is required to be stated that during the talks of settlement, the company had offered to the respondent workman a sum of rupees two lakhs by way of compensation. Mr. Singh stated that the company is still willing to pay the amount to the workman provided he accepts the payment as and by way of full satisfaction within three months. 11.In the result, the petition succeeds. The impugned order of the tribunal is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition succeed. *****