Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
M/s BEC Impex International Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5142 of 1999
Decided On : 13-05-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Mr. Soumya Rai.
For the Respondent: Mr. Varun Sharma, Mr. Vikas Dubey, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-FFF - CLRA Act - Section 29 - Payment of compensation – Quash - Reference were in employment of petitioner/employer - It was further pleaded that the M.P.I.R. & Standard Standing Orders were applicable to members of respondent/Union and those workers were not served with charge sheet and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted before terminating their services and even termination orders were not passed and not communicated to concerned workers they were neither paid any retrenchment compensation nor one month’s notice or notice pay was paid them - It was also pleaded that junior workers than workers covered in Reference were retained and they are still employment petitioner/employer and new employees were also recruited and action of petitioner/employer is wholly illegal being in contravention of Certified Standing Order workers were and are always willing to work from whom they have been and are being deprived illegally and unjustifiably and it was prayed that be reinstated in services along with all benefits/wages/compensation –Held, Court has recorded finding that workmen of respondent/ Union are entitled for compensation Section as the industry was closed without following procedure envisaged ID Act - In case hand reference made by appropriate Government was only extent that whether termination of employees attached with the list reference was justified and proper and to what relief they are entitled for - There was reference appropriate Government for adjudication whether closure was justified or not - In case hand petitioner/employer raised defence in his written statement that since industry was closed down with effect workers employed in industry were dropped Court in aforesaid judgments Industrial Court was entitled to examine defence of the petitioner/employer as an incidental question find out as to whether the termination of employees so made by petitioner in said undertaking is unjustified and ultimately if it found that the employees have wrongly been terminated without complying provisions law on account closure undertaking then only relief Industrial Court was entitled to grant was reinstatement of service and back-wages compensation but Industrial Court without valid reference Act read with ID Act was not entitled to examine the non-compliance procedural provisions for closure of undertaking and after declaring said closure illegal could not have awarded compensation Section ID which applicable to undertaking of petitioner as would amount to going beyond terms of reference - Thus for grant of compensation Section light non-compliance Section closure of undertaking valid reference appropriate Government provisions Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act read with the Industrial Disputes Act sine non and admittedly this case reference was not made by appropriate Government for adjudication of closure of the petitioners undertaking to the Industrial Court and as such order granting retrenchment compensation and notice pay – Order accordingly
1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein namely M/s. BEC Impex International Pvt. Ltd. against the part of the award granting compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the employees attached with Reference made by the appropriate Government and also questioning the order granting compensation under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to them.
[For sake of convenience, respondent No.1 herein Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh will be referred as Workmen-Union/respondent No.1 and petitioner herein M/s. BEC Impex International Pvt. Ltd. will be referred as employer as their status before the Industrial Court.]
BRIEF FACTS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
2. The present writ petition arises out of Reference Case No.4/MPIR/1996 referred by appropriate Government to the Industrial Court for adjudication and answered by impugned award dated 16.10.1999.
3. The aforesaid challenge has been made by the petitioner/employer questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the part of award on following factual back drop :-
3.1 The appropriate Government (erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh) by reference order dated 26.02.1993 referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh Bench at Raipur for adjudication, which state as under:-
1- D;k osru ,oa HkRrksa ds iqujh{k.k dk vkSfpR; gS\ ;fn gkWa rks osru] eagxkbZ HkRrk ,oa vU; HkRrksa dh D;k ;kstuk gksuk pkfg;s ,oa bl laca/k esa fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkuk pkfg,\
2- D;k izfro"kZ 15 fnu dk vkdfLed vodk'k] 10 fnu dk R;kSgkjh vodk'k rFkk 30 fnu dk fpfdRlk vodk'k fn;s tkus dk vkSfpR; gS\ ;fn gkWa rks bl laca/k esa fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkuk pkfg,\
3- D;k layXu ifjf'k"V esa mYysf[kr ,EiykbZt dk lsok i`Fkdhdj.k oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks bl lEcU/k esa fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkuk pkfg;s\
3.2 Subsequently, vide order No. 6-1/93/16-A dated 31.07.1995 the Government has referred the following terms of reference also by adding to the earlier three terms of reference thus making the total four: -
4- D;k vuqdzekad 3 ds layXu ifjf'k"V esa mYysf[kr lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s ,EiykbZt dks fookn ds fujkdj.k gksus rd varfje jkgr iznku djus dk vkSfpR; gS\ ;fn gkaW rks bl laca/k esa fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;k tkuk pkfg;s\
3.3 The petitioner/employer raised preliminary objection questioning the competency of reference particularly to the terms of Reference No.3. These objections were decided by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore by order dated 31.05.1995 rejecting the objection so raised and matter was remanded to the Industrial Court, Raipur for adjudication on merits, but thereafter matter was referred to the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to decide the said question. The Full Bench of High Court of Madha Pradesh by order dated 06.04.1999 directed the Industrial Court, Raipur to decide the reference so made on merits as per law on hearing the parties.
3.4 Upon notice being issued by the Industrial Court, Raipur, respondent No.1/Workmen Union filed its statement of claim before the said court making their claim with reference to all four terms of the reference separately as under:-
(i) In respect of terms of reference No.1, it was claimed that they are entitled for pay scale, darkness allowance, cycle allowances, house rent allowances and shift allowance.
(ii) In respect of terms of reference No.2, it was claimed that they are entitled for 15 days casual leave, 10 days festival holidays and 30 days medical leave.
(iii) In respect of terms of reference No.3, it was claimed that the concerned workers (57) detailed in the Reference were in the employment of the petitioner/employer. It was further pleaded that the M.P.I.R. Act, 1960 & the Standard Standing Orders were applicable to members of the respondent/Union and those workers (57) were not served with charge sheet and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted before terminating th
