LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-8

PYARE LAL Vs. M/S. KORES (INDIA) LTD.

Decided On April 02, 2014
PYARE LAL Appellant
V/S
M/S. Kores (India) Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the Award passed by the Labour Court on June 19, 1999 in I.D No.97/83, wherein the Labour Court decided the reference made against the petitioners herein by holding that they are not entitled to any relief.

(2.) The reference was made with regard to 19 workmen by the appropriate government on July 11, 1983 on the following terms:

(3.) I may state here that this writ petition has been filed by 11 workmen/petitioners and out of 11, petitioner Nos.5 & 8 have settled their disputes with the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners in their claim which was filed through the General Secretary Mr.Pyare Lal that they were in permanent employment of the respondent for the last several years and have never given any chance of complaint with regard to their work and conduct. The respondent however, has been adopting anti-labour practices, as a result of which they decided to form a union namely Kores (India) Workers Union (Regd.). According to them, on September 18, 1981 workman Pyare Lal was suspended from his services along with co-worker Mangal Singh and domestic inquiries were instituted against them. However, as the respondent was aware that it was not going to succeed in the said domestic inquiry, they entered into an agreement with the union on February 22, 1982 and the genuine demands of the petitioners were accepted by the respondent. Mr.Pyare Lal and Mr.Mangal Singh were reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. It was their case that on August 30, 1982 at about 4.00 p.m when the factor was to be closed, officer of the respondent came and started giving cheques to the workers for full and final settlement and asked them that their services were no longer required by the respondent. The termination of the services of the petitioners is alleged to be illegal on the ground that the seniors were thrown out of job and juniors were retained in services of the respondent.