Compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded when reinstatement is not feasible due to unfair labor practices and strained relations, reflecting principles of natural justice and ongoing employment status of workmen.

ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

Assailing the orders in and by which the approval petitions filed by the petitioner was rejected by the 1^st respondent in respect of the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner against the respective 2^nd respondent, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petitions are as under :-

3. The respective 2^nd respondents were working under the petitioner as workmen in various capacities. Due to certain acts perpetrated by the respective 2^nd respondents, which were in violation of Rules 16 (n), 16 (v) and 16 (z) of the Model Standing Orders, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said respondents and upon completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents were found guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly an order of dismissal was passed against them and the respective 2^nd respondents were removed from service with effect from 3.11.2021 by paying one month salary and final settlement of the amounts due and payable to them. Since a dispute u/s 2 (k) was pending adjudication before the appropriate judicial forum, the petitioner filed the present petitions u/s 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the order of dismissal before the 1^st respondent.

4. The 1^st respondent, taking the approval petitions on file, upon hearing the workmen as also the management, held that the dismissal of the workmen from service was unfair labour practice adopted by the management and there were violations of principles of natural justice in the enquiry conducted and, therefore, dismissed the approval petitions filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the approval petitions, the present petitions have been filed by the Management.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the findings rendered by the 1^st respondent are grossly erroneous, misconceived and not on the basis of the materials available on record. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner has afforded sufficient opportunity to the respective 2^nd respondents whilst the conduct of the enquiry and all the procedural aspects of enquiry were followed before dismissing the workmen from service. However, the 1^st respondent has not appreciated the materials in proper perspective and had passed the impugned order, which deserves to be dismissed.

6. However, without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner has submitted that pending the writ petitions, due to the precarious financial position of the petitioner management, the management had transferred their right to one SKHM India Pvt. Ltd., on a slump sale basis with effect from 1.7.2024. the relevant portion of the additional affidavit reads as under :-

“6. I submit that as part of a business decision the petitioner company sold its undertakings at Orgadam, Pune and Sanand to SKHM India Private Limited (SKHM) on a slump sale basis, with effect from 1^st July, 2024.

7. It is respectfully submitted that since 1^st of July, 2024, the petitioner management has parted with their factory in view of the financial position and the fact that the transfer took place on 1^st of July, 2024, it is submitted that the buyer namely, SKHM India Private Limited (SKHM) was willing to take back the 170 workers