N BAKTHAVACHALAM Vs. TANNEX APPARELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been field by the petitioners, challenging the order passed by the second respondent under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial disputes Act- 1947, in ID. Nos. 67, 64, 65, 66 of 2005 respectively.

(2.) As it appears that the petitioners joined in Hindustan Lever Ltd, as workmen and were the permanent employees of the said Management. However, the said Hindustan Lever Limited, was taken over by the first respondent with the condition to absorb the petitioners and other employees in similar condition of service in which they were working with Hindustan Lever Limited. Accordingly, the petitioners were absorbed in the respondent No.1-Management. The petitioners' date of retirement with their former employer being 60 years of age, they were expecting to continue in the service with the respondent No.1 till they attained the aforesaid age of superannuation. But the respondent No.1- Management terminated their service before they reached the aforesaid age of superannuation and as such, they disputed the same before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Conciliation, Chennai. However if failure report having been submitted in this regard on 01.04.2004 and 30.04.2004 respectively, they raised Industrial Dispute Case Nos.65,66,67 and 68 of 2004 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to declare their termination to be illegal and direct the Management to reinstate them with all back wages and other benefits. The same was contested by the respondent No.1 disputing the petitioners' service in the erstwhile Management was taken over by the respondent No.1 on similar terms and conditions, but the stand of the respondent No.1 was that the petitioners while working with the Hindustan Liver Limited which was taken over by the respondent No.1, on consideration of their past service and on sympathetic ground, they were taken as new entrant by the respondent No.1. However, after taking over the said Company, since the respondent No.1 suffered from heavy financial loss due to lack of raw materials, it terminated the service of the petitioners in accordance with law.

(3.) It appears that the respondent No.1 taking into consideration the materials placed by the parties came to conclusion that the petitioners were new entrants in the Company of the first respondent and their termination is for bonafide reasons and since there was no work with the Leather stitching unit, in which the petitioners were working and the Company had suffered financial loss and there was no resources. The petitioners having also been paid their wages including the compensation in accordance with law which they have accepted as full and final settlement, they had no case, but since they have requested the first respondent to consider their case on humanitarian ground, and in view of the provisions contained in Section 18 (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the petitioners were ready and willing to receive the additional compensation instead of the award of re-instatement, directed the payment of an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the petitioners as compensation. The same is challenged in this writ petition by the writ petitioners, inter-alia on the ground that the same is contrary to the materials on record and with a prayer to quash the same and to pass an order in accordance with law.