HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company, in the present Writ Petition has called in question the impugned award dated October 30, 1998 published on March 6, 1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Cases No. 36/93 to 50 of 1993 and 5 of 1994.

(2.) I have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner, Sri K.P. Agarwal assisted by Km. Suman Sirohi for the workmen and learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) The relevant facts that lie within a narrow compass are that in the year 1974, the petitioner-company after discussions with the workmen/trade unions offered a scheme of voluntary separation known as 'voluntary separation scheme' (in short VSS). Notice of the said scheme was notified on October 10, 1974. The scheme offered substantial benefits in excess of those provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 to the workmen. In response, about 80 workmen resigned during the period October 1974 to February, 1975 under the said scheme and all dues etc. were received by them in full and final settlement in terms of the scheme aforesaid. It is urged that about five years of the separation from the petitioner-company 27 workmen in their individual capacity raised disputes under Section 2-A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Some workmen did not pursue their cases in conciliation and as such the conciliation was got confined and only 22 workmen remained pursuing their matters. The cases were referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State of U.P. on November 27, 1981 and before the Tribunal, six more workmen did not pursue their cases and the present dispute relates to only 16 workmen. Aggrieved by the reference, the petitioner-company filed writ petition before this Court being number 2952 of 1982. In this writ petition, preliminary issue challenging the appointment of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was raised. The writ petition was tagged with bunch of writ petitions (leading Writ Petition No. 9761 of 1981). All those writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated April 8, 1985 holding that the appointment of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was proper. While dismissing the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions, the Court held as under: "We have confined our judgment to the challenge to the appointment of various Presiding Officers. We make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all or any of the contentions which are also subject matter of these writ petition either before the Labour Courts concerned or after the final award has been given by them."