G DHAMODHARAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners herein seek the quashing of the common order of the Labour Court rejecting the petitions under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that when the total number of persons who had made a petition before the Labour Court were 163 persons, the Tribunal considered the evidence of only one representative on behalf of the Petitioners, and Ors. have not let in any evidence; consequently, the order passed rejecting the petitions based on the evidence of only one witness is illegal and contrary to law. Quite apart, relying on Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that even though the Petitioners had come out of the company under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and received the settlement, yet, some of the employees who had opted to go under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, continued to remain in service even after 1996 and that under a settlement reached in the year 1997, they had the advantage of a better settlement. Consequently, the Petitioners also merited to have the same benefit of settlement of the year 1997. Since the Respondent Management did not apply the settlement thus reached in the year 1997 in respect of the Petitioners herein, the Petitioners moved the Labour Court under Section 33-C(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) A perusal of the order of the Labour Court shows that the Petitioners had not established any right to file a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the contrary, the Labour Court pointed out that the evidence of the Petitioners was in favour of the Respondent Management herein. Having regard to the fact that some of the Petitioners had already retired on attaining superannuation and some of the Petitioners had gone on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act on March 15, 1997, the Petitioners not being workmen during the relevant period, the question of extending the benefit of the settlement reached under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1997 did not arise.