IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
Kishan Vishwakarma and Others – Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Gulshan Engineering Works – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 605 of 2012
Decided On : 20-04-2018
Labour Dispute - Termination of Services - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Section 2A, Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H, Section 25K - The court considered the termination of services of the workmen and the closure of the establishment by the management. The key legal provisions discussed include Section 25F (Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen), Section 25G (Procedure for retrenchment), Section 25H (Re-employment of retrenched workmen), Section 25K (Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings). The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in relation to the evidence and documents presented.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen's services were terminated by the management, who claimed that the establishment was closed due to financial problems. The workmen disputed the termination and demanded reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of services and the closure of the establishment were supported by evidence and documents. However, it remanded the case back to the Labour Court for reconsideration of specific issues related to individual workmen.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the employer-employee relationship, settlement of dues, and the closure of the establishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence and documents presented, and it emphasized the need for the Labour Court to reconsider specific aspects of the case in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The impugned Award was quashed and set aside for the petitioners, except for the findings on the closure of the establishment. The matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for reconsideration.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside or modify the Award dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short, called "the Labour Court") in ID No. 718/06/03. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi through its Secretary (Labour), vide Reference No. F-24(4705)/ 2002/Lab/798-802 dated 31.03.2003 referred the dispute between the Management of the respondent and its workmen, to the Labour Court for adjudication, in the following terms of reference:
“Whether the services of Sh. Kishan Vishwakarma and Others have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing laws/Govt. notification and to what other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Labour Court has passed the impugned Award in respect of five workmen including the petitioners herein, whereas the impugned Award has been challenged by three workmen, i.e. the petitioners before this Court. Thus, this Court is considering the impugned Award in respect of these petitioners/workmen only.
3. The claim of the workmen including the petitioners herein and the written statement of the Management, as verbatim noticed by the Labour Court, are as follow:-
“As per claim, the workmen had been working on the post, monthly salary, date of joining as per chart given below:
S. No.
Name
Post
Date of joining
Monthly Salary
1.
Kishan Vishwakarma
Fitter
15.03.95
Rs. 2,500/-
2.
Sugriv
Pressman
15.03.95
Rs. 2,000/-
3.
Jagdish Paswan
Pressman
15.03.95
Rs. 2,000/-
4.
Vishram Yadav
Helper
10.05.95
Rs. 1,500/-
5.
Dalip Jha
Pressman
15.03.95
Rs. 2,000/-
It is stated that the management had no complaint against the workmen in their service period. It is further stated that all the workmen demanded the legal facilities i.e. Minimum Wages, ESI, PF, Earned Leaves etc. but the management had not provided the same and on demanding these facilities by the workmen repeatedly, management got annoyed and terminated their services on 05.05.02 without giving any notice and notice pay and also without paying earned wages for the month of March, April and May 2002 and without conducting any domestic enquiry as well as issuing the charge sheet. It is further stated that all the workmen had made a complaint before Labour Inspector on which Labour Inspector visited the management and gave directions to the management to reinstate the workmen and to pay their earned wages but the management had refused the same. It is further stated that management took forcible signature of the workmen on the blank papers and vouchers before terminating their services. It is further stated that workmen sent a demand notice through registered AD on 13.05.02, which was not replied by the management. It is further stated that workmen tried to search the job at many places but they failed to get any job. It is further stated that all the workmen are entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service alongwith consequential benefits.
The Management has stated in the written statement that workmen Kishan Vishwakarma and Sh. Sugriv Yadav have settled their full and final account on 12.04.02 out of their own free will for a sum of Rs. 13,110/- and Rs. 11,223/- respectively and as such there are no existing dues in favour of workmen and against the management. It is further stated that the claim of the claimant Dalip Jha is also not maintainable on the ground that the workmen had taken his full and final dues with the management in the year 2001 and after taking his full and final
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.