RAMJAS FOUNDATION Vs. DHEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present set of writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner, Ramjas Foundation to assail the similar awards passed by Labour Courts, wherein the retrenchment of the respondent workmen have been held to be void ab initio, and reinstatement has been granted in earlier cases with continuity of services and consequential benefits along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. In cases where the Workmen attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the industrial dispute, instead of reinstatement, they have been granted full back wages till the date of superannuation and pension thereafter, along with interest, as aforesaid. Since the material facts in all these cases are the same, the petitioner is the same and the same issues have been raised in all these cases, they have been taken up for disposal simultaneously. Ld counsels have also advanced common arguments in these cases.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the petitioner society owned a vast tract of land measuring about 1600 bighas in village Chowkri Mubarikabad and Village Sadhora Khurd, New Delhi .The structures built thereon were given to various persons on lease and license basis. The Petitioner employed several office and field staff for realisation of rent of these properties, for keeping their records and accounts, and other allied work. Around 1999- 2000 the said tract of land was acquired by Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A) which compelled the Petitioner to dispense with the services of 78 workmen, including the Respondent workmen, and which was done in compliance with Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(Act).

(3.) Based on the evidence adduced and arguments advanced by the parties, the labour courts held that the petitioner has violated Section 25F(a), Section 25F(b) of the Act and Rule77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (Rules) in as much, as, the House Rent Allowance (HRA)- which forms a part of Wages as defined in Section 2(rr) of the Act, was not included in the computation of the retrenchment compensation, and neither any seniority list was prepared and pasted by the Petitioner in compliance of Rule 77 of the Rules. Accordingly, the impugned awards were passed, as aforesaid.