MANAGEMENT OF WAVIN INDIA LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these writ appeals is to the order of the learned single Judge, dated december 14, 2000 in W. P. Nos. 3556 of 1998, 5685 of 1998 to 5690 of 1998 and 5711 of 1998 to 5722 of 1998.

(2.) THE challenge in the above said writ petitions was to the two common awards passed by the first respondent-Labour Court in i. D. Nos. 195 of 1990 to 200 of 1990, 240 of 1990, 241 of 1990 and 701 of 1990 to 713 of 1990, dated March 31, 1997 respectively. Under the said awards, the first respondent-Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the concerned workmen with continuity of service, with full back wages and other attendant benefits less the amount already paid by way of compensation.

(3.) THE brief facts which led to the raising of the above disputes are required to be stated. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes. The respective second respondent in these appeals were all employed under the appellant. It is stated that after the expiry of long term settlement dated February 28, 1986, a fresh settlement came to be entered into between the appellant and its workmen represented by their Union on January 14, 1988. It appears that not satisfied with the benefits extended to the workmen, agitations were resorted to, which according to the appellant, resulted in loss of production which ultimately forced the appellant to close the factory with effect from December 17, 1988. According to the appellant, the closure notice dated November 17, 1988 as contemplated under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was also sent to the appropriate state Government. It is further stated that there was also a charter of demand on behalf of the workmen, which the State Government declined to refer as per its order dated July 17, 1989 on the ground that the factory itself had been closed with effect from December 17, 1988. It is not in dispute that the said order of the State Government was not challenged. It is further claimed by the appellant that the total number of workmen at the time of closure was 52 apart from the Management Assistants numbering 26. It is on record that all the workmen and the Management Assistants were offered closure compensation as provided i under Section 25-FFF read with 25-F of the Act and that the compensation was also accepted by all of them.