R.K. INDUSTRIES Vs. RAM KISHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the Writ petitions bearing Nos. 17694/2006 & 17695/2006, both titled as R.K. Industries v. Ram Kishan and Ors. and R.K. Industries v. Ram Avtar and Anr. These writ petitions are challenging the orders dated 7th October, 2004 and award dated 27.02.06 and 28.02.06 passed by the learned Labour Court Delhi directing reinstatement and continuity of service of the respondent/workmen in both cases with 50% of the back wages of all other benefits. The Secretary, Labour, Government of NCT of Delhi had made two separate references for adjudication to the learned Labour Court which were as under:

(2.) IN pursuance to this, the workmen filed their separate statement of claims alleging that they were appointed as workmen by the petitioner on the post of Turner with effect from 1st January, 1992 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,950/ - per month. Their services were terminated illegally without assigning any reason on 23.8.2001 and their signatures were obtained on some papers and vouchers forcibly by the Management after handing over a cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - to each to them. The respondent/workmen are purported to have sent a demand notice dated 25th August, 2001 to the Management which was never replied. The case of the respondent/workmen was that this termination was illegal as it was against the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act because he was not paid any retrenchment compensation. The facts set up by both the workmen were almost identical.

(3.) THE petitioner/Management is stated to have learnt about these individual awards only when recovery notices were received by them after the publication of the award. They accordingly, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte award, which application was rejected by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 11th July, 2006 holding that the petitioners were properly served and there was no material on record to believe that the petitioners were not properly served. After the rejection of their applications, the petitioner has preferred the present two separate petitions against the orders of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner on 7th October, 2004 and the award passed on 27th and 28th February, 2006.