Non-employment of the workman found unjustified; entitlement to increased compensation established per labour law standards.

ORDER :

A . The Petitions:

1. These two Writ Petitions challenge the same award dated 16/06/2020 made in O.P. No. 18 of 2019 by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Management and the Workman filed them and, as such, are deposed of by this Common Order.

B. The Workman’s Case:

2. The case of the workman is that the Management has been in the business of manufacturing dry cell batteries, torch lights, etc. since the year 1905. Union Carbide India Limited, which killed lakhs of people in Bhopal, was the major shareholder. ‘Eveready’ Brand Cells was a successful brand, and through its units in Guindy and Thiruvotriyur, Chennai, huge profits ran into hundreds of crores of rupees throughout. The Management had several operations throughout the country. While so, it decided to shift its operations to Assam, only to get rid of the workforce and to employ badlis and new hands in violation of all labour welfare legislations. The Office bearers of one of the Trade Unions were in collusion with the management, and taking advantage of the same, the management entered into bogus settlements, as if the workmen resigned/voluntarily retired in June 2018. Thereafter, it non-employed the petitioner with effect from 13/11/2018, who did not agree to the bogus settlement. The petitioner raised a dispute. After committing to attend conciliation, the management issued a transfer order transferring the workman to its Assam unit on 10/01/2019. Hence, non- employment is illegal. No proper procedure was followed while closing the unit. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

C. The Management’s Case:

3. The management's case is that, due to the import of dry cells from China and other factors, the unit in Chennai became unviable in 2017. The management entered into settlements with the workmen under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the ID Act). Two hundred fifty-three workmen applied for Voluntary Retirement, and their services came to an end on 30/06/2018. Following the same, the services of the managerial staff became redundant. However, instead of terminating these 35 managerial staff, they were transferred to be accommodated in other units of the management. The workman in question is one such managerial staff, who was transferred to Assam on 10/01/2019. He was never non-employed. His salary was paid until February 2019. Hence, the petition is not maintainable.

D. The Enquiry & Findings of the Labour Court:

4. The conciliation did not yield any solution. The claim petition filed under Section 2 -A of the Act was taken on file as O.P. No. 18 of 2019. The same was resisted by the management by filing counter statement. The Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. The Workman examined himself as W.W.-1 and Exs. W1 to W-22 were marked. On behalf of management, one R. Vinayakamurthy was examined as M.W.-1 and Exs.M1 to M-9 were marked.

4.1. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties. It rejected the case of the management that the workman was only a supervisory and management staff member and held that he is a workman within the definition under the ID Act. If further held that he was non-employed with effect from November 2018 and the transfer order issued to him after receipt of conciliation notice was only an afterthought. It held that the non-employment was unjustified. Given the fact that the unit was closed, it ordered compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with back wages.

E. The Submissions:

5. Heard, the Workman as party-in-person and Mr.Anand Gopalan, the learned counsel for the management and perused the material re