DALIP KUMAR Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of common award dated 1st October, 2002, whereby the Labour Court answered the reference partly in favour of the petitioners and partly in favour of the respondents.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent/workmen had been awarded contract of IGI Airport to do civil work. The petitioners and other workmen were employed as daily wagers on this project. The management gave retrenchment notices to different workmen on 19.10.85, 21.11.85, 23.11.85 and 27.11.85, offering them one month's pay and the retrenchment compensation as per rules. These notices, however, were later on revoked and the management issued fresh notices under Sections 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act( in short 'the Act') on 5.2.1986 on the closure of the project/establishment and the workmen were retrenched in accordance with the provisions of Section 25FFF of the Act with effect from 5.2.1986 and the compensation in accordance with section 25FFF(2) of the Act was sent to them. However, the workmen refused to receive retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and raised a dispute about illegal termination of their services which was referred to the Labour Court in following terms: ?Whether the services of the workmen as per Annexure 'A' have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect??

(3.) Before the Labour Court 24 employees filed a common claim statement. The employees took the stand that the respondent was having 14 branches and it was employing definitely more than 100 workmen on an average working day for the preceding last 12 months all over India. They contended that Chapter 5(B) of the Act was applicable to the management and since the claimants were in service for an year, they could not have been retrenched on the ground of closure. The management had not sought any permission of closure from the appropriate Government. The closure was not genuine and bona fide. The work at IGI Airport was actually completed on 9.9.1986 and not on 5.2.1986. The notice dated 5.2.1986 was, therefore, bad. The claimant also pleaded that as per earlier practice, the management used to transfer workmen from one site to other site since the projects of the management were going on at different places. The management with ulterior motives, to get rid of the workmen, had taken the plea of closure. The workmen claimed reinstatement with full back wages.