SHUDDHODHAN ALIAS DASHRATH GANVIR Vs. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/employees are challenging almost identical, but different judgments delivered by the Industrial Court dismissing their ULP Complaints claiming re-employment with respondent No. 2. The order dated 30.06.2006 delivered by the said Court in ULP Complaint No. 832/1999 forms subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1424/2007 and order dated 20.08.2002 delivered in ULP Complaint No. 529/1994 is challenged in Writ Petition No. 1428/2007. The complainants before the Industrial Court who did not choose to join in filing Writ Petition before this Court are impleaded as respondents in both the matters. Parties have stated that Writ Petition No. 1428/2007 should be taken up as main matter.

(2.) The facts stated briefly show that on 05.12.1991 an agreement or understanding was reached between the elected representatives and respondent No. 2. That agreement is at Exh.61 in ULP Complaint No. 529/1994 and at Exh.31 in ULP Complaint No. 832/1999. It mentions that about 100 workers were present at that time and the financial problem faced by the employer and its inability to provide work appears to be the subject matter thereof. Ultimately the said document records that the Management would pay to the workmen Gratuity, Bonus, Arrears of leave with wages, wages for earned leave proportionately and willing employees were to submit their applications along with resignations on 06.12.1991 and 07.12.1991. The Management had agreed to make the payments accordingly by 17.12.1991 and to deposit proportionate amount of provident fund with Provident Fund Commissioner. The agreement also provided that if management restarts the establishment, the workers who had resigned would only be given work as per need and seniority in preference. It also provided that if management started any establishment or then if any other factory/establishment was arranged on contract basis, similar precedence should be given to the workers. It is also an admitted position that there were about 174 employees with respondent No. 2 and out of them only 118 submitted their applications/resignations as per this document dated 05.12.1991. The remaining employees did not submit to the same and hence respondent No. 2 employer was constrained to continue them in employment and because of the various courts orders was also required to pay them salary.

(3.) Complaining of breach of this arrangement petitioners on 29.04.1994 filed ULP Complaint No. 529/1994. The said complaint was filed by 27 employees who are out of 118 employees mentioned above. After pointing out that agreement dated 05.12.1991 was on account of intervention by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur they have stated that the matter in dispute was settled and the complainants were retrenched after their nominal resignation. They pleaded that they never intended to leave the job and acted on assurance given by the management of re-employing them. They complained that there was no re-employment provided to them and other workers were given the job. They pleaded that about 48 employees were thus given the work without considering the seniority and the action was in violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act as also agreement dated 05.12.1991. They pleaded that the cause of action arose on 31.09.1992 when they approached the employer for re-employment and the management did not pay any attention to their demands.