RAJESH LOOMBA Vs. AMARJEET & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is, to the notice dated November 27, 2001 issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Implementation Branch calling upon the petitioner to appear before him and to explain as to why the Award of the Labour Court dated February 1, 2000 be not implemented. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the Award dated February 1, 2000, wherein the Industrial Adjudicator has directed reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and 60% back wages.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,08,023/- to the respondent No.1 in the month of June, 2001. The said amount is for implementing the Award dated February 1, 2000. It is noted that as the petitioner had not reinstated the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 has sought the recovery of Rs.46,061/- as wages for the period beyond February 1, 2000.

(3.) During the submissions, an issue arose whether the proprietorship concern namely Eco Tours has been closed down. This aspect has been contested by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 by relying upon certain yearly calendars got printed by the petitioner in the name of Eco Rent A Car whose address is the same as that of Eco Tours i.e A-264, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aspect of closure has attained finality in an Award dated February 26, 2003 rendered by the Industrial Adjudicator in a different industrial dispute, which is a subject-matter of a different writ petition in this Court. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to page 118 of the paper-book, wherein the issue "Whether the Management has closed the establishment with effect from June 3, 2000 in accordance with law, if so its effect", has been decided in favour of M/s Eco Tours. If that be so, the respondent No.1 could not have been taken on duty pursuant to Award dated February 1, 2000. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that, as the respondent No.1 got employment only in 2004, till that time the respondent No.1 is entitled to wages.