P.P. ASSOCIATES Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the award dated 7 th April, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Court in ID No.201/2001 whereby the learned Trial Court directed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and 2,45,000/- to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively with interest @ 18% pa till the date of releazation besides a joint litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court's finding that the plea of the Petitioner was abandonment of service by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is perverse. The Petitioner never took the plea of abandonment. The case of the Petitioner was that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 left their duties without any permission or intimation on 23 rd September, 2000 at about 3.45 PM and thereafter started absenting themselves. 11/2 months thereafter, due to a policy decision, the Petitioner's stitching unit had to be closed on 7 th November, 2000 and the entire factory closed down on 1 st April, 2001. In view of the absence of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from duty and closure of stitching unit on 7 th November, 2000, it was a case of closure as defined under Section 2(cc) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (in short 'ID Act'). Thus, at best, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to closure compensation. Section 2(cc) of ID Act contemplates even closure of part of the establishment. As regards closure of the factory on 1 st April, 2001, the Petitioner duly intimated to the authorities i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Director, Employees State Insurance Coporation (ESI), Concilition Officer and the Labour Inspector. A perusal of the crossexamination of the workmen would show that there was no rebuttal to the evidence of the management that it had closed down the factory on 1 st April, 2001. The workmen in his cross-examination had admitted that he was not refused duty by the management and thus, the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding termination of service is perverse and without any basis and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand contends that the case of the Petitioner is clearly of abandonment of duties. In the written statement, it is not pleaded that call back notices were given to Repondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the management for the first time in their evidence stated that call back notices have been sent. However, no receipt thereof was produced. Even the letters allegedly sent to the Government agencies regarding closure of factory on 1 st April, 2001 were rightly not relied upon by the learned Trial Court as the receipts thereof with the Government departments were not proved. Though the case of the Petitioner is that it closed down its stitching and tailoring unit on 7 th November, 2000 as a policy decision and on 1 st April, 2001 the entire factory was closed, however, MW1 in his cross-examination stated that the management has been closed down with effect from 7 th November, 2000 by closing down stitching department. Thus, there is apparent contradiction in the version of the management which cannot be thus relied upon and the learned Trial Court committed no error in discarding evidence of the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have clearly proved that they went to duty but were not permitted to join and no evidence was produced by the management to rebut the evidence of the Respondents. Hence there being no error much less an error of law in the impugned award, the present petition be dismissed.