BRAWN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. RAMU POKHREL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing the award dated 30/11/2006 passed by the learned Labour Court.

(2.) THE brief conspectus of the facts as set out in the petition are as under:

(3.) PER Contra, Mr. K.C. Dubey, counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is in compliance with the relevant legal provisions and the present petition should be outrightly rejected. The counsel averred that although, the labour court ought to have awarded full back wages with reinstatement, but still the respondent did not assail the said award due to their financial hardship. The counsel urged that the petitioner has raised several additional facts to make out a case, which was not even set up before the tribunal. The counsel contended that the main issue before the tribunal was that whether the workmen were laid off or retrenched as per law and whether the proposed transfer was proper. It was not the case of the petitioner as to whether the provisions of the employment agreement were violated or not. The counsel pointed out that, be that as it may be, any terms and conditions imposed on the workman contrary to the statutory provisions are null and void and the management cannot misuse transfer as a colourable exercise of the power to terminate the services of the workman. The counsel averred that the respondents are out of employment and the present petition filed by the management is just for causing continuous harassment to the respondents. The counsel maintained that the petitioner did not comply with the legal requirements for closing down their establishment as provided under Section 25O of the I.D. Act. The counsel urged that the permission is essentially to be sought from the proper authorities and for violation of same the award has been rightly passed against the petitioner. The counsel relied on following judgments in support of his contentions: