AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Labour court gave an award on 25.01.1996 in favour of the workman who is petitioner in the first writ petition. Afterwards the said award was modified on the review application filed by the employer (petitioner in the second writ petition). The review petition was allowed in part on 24.09.1996. Workman filed the first writ petition against order dated 24.09.1996. Second writ petition has been filed by the employer against award dated 25.01.1996 as well as order dated 24.09.1996 passed on review petition as complete relief was not granted by the labour court on the review petition to the employer.
First writ petition filed by the workman was allowed by me on 18.05.2011 on the ground that labour court had no power of review. On the same date second writ petition filed by the employer was dismissed in default. However both the orders have been set aside on restoration/ rehearing applications on 30.11.2011. On the said date arguments on merit were also heard.
The award was given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 3 of 1992, which was to the effect that the employer should pay complete wages to the workman from the date of termination (31.08.1990/ 01.09.1990) till the closure of the undertaking. Review petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 65 of 1996. Through subsequent order dated 24.09.1996 passed on the review petition it was directed that employer should pay Rs.30,000/-to the workman.
There are two companies one known by the name of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Kanpur which is petitioner in the second writ petition and the other is J.K. Satho Agricultural Machine Ltd. Kanpur. Admittedly the workman was employed by J.K. Satho in the year 1973 and the said concern was closed in 1984. However some employees were retained to look after the winding up work including Ram Kumar workman concerned. The retained employees of J.K. Satho were required to sit in the office of J.K. Synthetics and do clerical work of winding up. J.K. Satho was closed on 31.07.1984 and apart from few clerical staff, all the employees were retrenched in legal manner. Services of Ram Kumar were terminated on 31.08.1990/ 01.09.1990. He was paid total amount of Rs.37915.29 through cheque dated 24.08.1990 which was admittedly received by Ram Kumar and got encashed. Ram Kumar raised the industrial dispute and asserted that he was mainly performing the work of J.K. Synthetics w.e.f. 01.08.1984, hence he should be deemed to be employee of J.K. Synthetics and his retrenchment was bad in law.
All the employees of J.K. Satho were legally retrenched. Ram Kumar was also admittedly an employee of J.K. Satho. He admitted that at least he was performing some work of J.K. Satho relating to its winding up, however he asserted that he was mainly looking after the work of J.K. Synthetics. At one and the same time, no person can be employee of two companies unless he is a part time employee. The most important fact is that retrenchment compensation of about Rs.38000/-was paid to the workman, Ram Kumar and he accepted the same. Accordingly, he could not challenge his retrenchment.
The workman argued that both the concerns were sister concerns and J.K. Synthetics was having 51% share in the J.K. Satho. In spite of it both remained independent concerns and all the employees of J.K. Satho were retrenched after the closure of the said concern except some clerical staff including the workman Ram Kumar. Accordingly, in my opinion the impugned award was not in accordance with law.
Even though in my opinion neither Ram Kumar was entitled to the wages from 01.09.1990 till closure of J.K. Synthetics nor he was entitled to Rs.30,000/-as awarded by subsequent order of labour court dated 24.09.1996 passed on the review petition of the employer. However as held by Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Om Pal, even if the employer is not at fault still some reasonable damages may be awarded to the workman. Accordingly, it is directed that workman Ram Kumar must be paid Rs.30,000/-.
The first writ petition is therefore dismissed, second writ petition is allowed, impugned award and the subsequent order passed on review petition are set aside. However it is directed that employer J.K. Synthetics petitioner in the second writ petition should pay Rs.30,000/-to the workman. The amount shall be paid through demand draft drawn in the name of workman or it shall be deposited before the Labour Court for immediate payment to workman. In case of default 2% per month interest shall be payable upon Rs.30,000/-since after three months till actual payment/deposit/realisation.