GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. KALYAN PAPER AND BOARD MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the General Secretary of Gujarat Audyogik Kamdar Sangathan who has represented the case on behalf of 27 workers involved in the industrial dispute. The workers involved in the present petition were working with respondent no.1 but as respondent no.1 was not paying minimum wages to the workers and as statutory benefits were denied to the workers, the workers have organized labours and at the instance of present petitioner raised certain demands for implementation of statutory provisions under different labour laws. The parties were heard at length in the Office of the Labour Commissioner and as the settlement was not possible, appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for the purpose of adjudication. The said dispute was registered as Reference L.C.A. No.156 of 1981. During the pendency of Reference, respondent no.1 has closed down the Company. According to the petitioner the respondent no.2 has purchased the machinery and factory of respondent no.1 and has started manufacturing activity at the same place and the production material was also same. It is submitted that in Reference LCA No. 156 of 1981, the parties have entered into settlement on 14.08.1981 and in pursuance of the said terms of settlement Labour Court passed the award on 17.08.1981. In the terms of settlement, it was categorically stated in para 8 that in case of transfer of machinery or business or transfer of business either by way of sale or by any other mode, in that case, the respondent has to give priority to the present petitioners in the matter of giving employment and for that purpose, it was incumbent upon respondent no.1 to inform the petitioners accordingly. It is alleged that the present respondents have failed to observe the agreed conditions and the Labour Court surprisingly without reading the terms of settlement in its true spirit for certain unknown reasons has discarded the claim of the present petitioners and employment to the workers was refused. The petitioner being aggrieved with the findings given by the Labour Court has preferred present petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the settlement at Annexure A was signed by respondent no.1 and therefore, it was within the knowledge of respondent no.1 to consider the case of the present petitioners and it was for respondent no.1 to persuade respondent no.2. It is submitted that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 acted in collusion and they took inconsistent plea before the Labour Court and subsequently respondent no.1 refused to accept liability with regard to giving employment to the present petitioners. It is submitted that by any stretch of imagination there is non compliance of the terms of settlement and the respondents have committed breach of settlement and unfortunately Labour Court has not appreciated clause of 8 of settlement in its true spirit. It is submitted that respondent no.1 and 2 have acted in collusion in order to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claim of employment. It is submitted that conclusions arrived by the Labour Court are not supported by evidence on record and findings of Labour Court are perverse in nature. In view of above, it is submitted that the award passed by Labour Court is bad in law and it is required to be quashed and set aside.