MANAGEMENT OF MS TEXMACO LTD Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the order dated 28. 11. 2006 passed by the learned Labour Court-19 in LCA Nos. 224/2006 to 232/2006. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the learned Labour Court has decided the preliminary issue framed in all these LCAs, which reads as under"

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondents /workmen were allegedly working with the petitioner company and it was directed to be closed w. e. f. 30. 11. 1996 by the orders of the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta Vs. UOI in on the basis that it was falling in the category H of the industries. On 4. 12. 1996, the Supreme Court on IA 36/96 being filed in the same writ modified the order so far as clause 9 (d) was concerned. The clause directed compensation are of two kinds to be paid: (i) for those employees whose employers were not intending to relocate their industries and wanted to close down (ii) who were ready to relocate the industries in both cases of employees, the compensation was one years salary apart from retrenchment compensation. But vide order dated 04. 12. 1996 the compensation for those employees whose employer did not relocate their industries was enhanced to six years wages payable to the workmen in place of one year and the Honble Court has clarified that the industries which have been relocated the original Clause 9 (d) which is giving one year compensation as by way of shifting bonus will apply. M/s Birla Textile Mills is functioning at relocated place at Baddi (Himachal pradesh) which was taken over by M/s Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. and the aforesaid mill became the unit of M/s chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. for administrative and managerial purposes. However, the terms of employment of all the employees were to remain the same as it was the unit of M/s Texmaco Ltd. Hence, all the employees who have joined their duties after the closure of mill at Delhi have been given continuity of service and other compensation as per the order of the Honble supreme Court when they joined at relocated place. The respondents No. 2 to 10 served a demand notice and claimed six years wages by misinterpreting the original Clause 9 (d) and modified vide order dated 04. 12. 1996.

(3.) THE respondent/workman had filed their claim for calculation of their monetary benefit in terms of Supreme Courts direction alleging that the petitioner had not relocated and closed its activity in the city of Delhi and therefore, they were entitled to six years wages as compensation. While as the petitioner /management filed reply to the statement of claim contesting the same on the basis of which a preliminary issue in the following terms was framed: