PAC WORKERS UNION REGD Vs. SECRETARY LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE.

(2.) With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

(3.) Petitioner claims to be a Union of the employees working with respondent no.3 management. There arose certain disputes between the employees of respondent no.3 and the management in December, 1998. The respondent no.3 closed down its establishment and the matter between the employees and the management was settled by means of a settlement arrived at on 25.1.1999. This settlement, I am informed has been duly registered with the Conciliation Officer. Even otherwise, there is no dispute between the petitioner and the management that such a settlement was duly arrived at between the parties. In terms of the settlement, the workers working with respondent no.3 were paid all their dues including earned wages, leave encashment, notice pay, bonus, compensation, re-employment benefits etc. and the relationship of `master' and `servant' was agreed to be terminated on permanent basis. In terms of the settlement payment was made to all the employees by means of cheques. The management after about eight months re-opened its establishment. The employees represented by the petitioner union wanted re-employment on the ground that the management as per its alleged vindicative policy closed down the establishment and thereupon a settlement was entered into between the management and the employees whereby the respondent management paid retrenchment compensation to the workmen with a rider that the management will re-employ them in case it re-started/re-opened its industrial unit. The case of the petitioner was that as the workers had been retrenched, they were entitled to be re-employed with the management on the establishment having been re-opened in August, 1999. Reliance for this is placed upon Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as "the Act").