GANSONS ENGINEERS P LTD Vs. SHRIRAM Y CHHATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmaceuticals and paekaging machines. The petitioner originally had a factory situated at Kandivali (W), Bombay 400 067 wherein it was carrying on its manufacture under an arrangement entered into between the petitioner company and one M/s. Alvin Core Drills P. Ltd. The said M/s. Alvin Core Drills P. Ltd. was under liquidation and the petitioners applied to this Court to extend the period for vacating the premises upto March 1984. This Court permitted the petitioners' factory to be run in the Kandivali premises only upto March 1984. Sometimes in March 1984, the petitioners started a factory at Nashik. Notice of starting of Nashik factory was given to the workmen by a notice dated February 28, 1984. The workmen were informed that all workmen employed in the Kandivali factory would be absorbed in the Nashik factory on or before March 31, 1984 since the petitioners were required to vacate the Kandivali factory premises. The said notice gave an option to the workmen at Kandivali factory either to join for duty at Nashik or to accept retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of law. The option was to be intimated to the Petitioners within a period of ten days. During the period February 28, 1984 to March 8, 1984, there was a strike in the Petitioners' factory at Kandivali. The majority of the workmen who were employed in the Kandivali factory exercised the option of joining for work in the Nashik factory. A few of the workmen, however, exercised the option of collecting retrenchment compensation.

(2.) THE first Respondent was working as a Senior Clerk in the Petitioners' Kandivali factory along with eleven other staff members. Ten out of the twelve staff members opted to join the Nashik factory and one opted for retrenchment compensation. As far as the first Respondent was concerned, he did not indicate his willingness to join at the Nashik factory, nor did he indicate that he desired to collect retrenchment compensation. After some time, i. e. in August, 1984 the first Respondent approached the office of the Labour Commissioner and raised an industrial dispute that he had been illegally removed from service. By letters dated December 26, 1984 and December 31, 1984 the first Respondent was advised by the petitioners to report for duty at its Nashik factory since the Kandivali factory had already been shifted to Nashik and the premises vacated. Despite these letters the first Respondent did not resume duties and pursued his industrial dispute. On January 24, 1985, the appropriate Government referred for adjudication of the Labour Court the industrial dispute of the first Respondent. By an Award dated September 12, 1991 the Labour Court rejected the reliefs in the Reference and declined all reliefs. The first Respondent challenged the said Award by his Writ Petition No. 663 of 1992 before this Court. This Writ Petition was rejected by this Court but liberty was given to the first Respondent to file an application for setting aside the Award. The First Respondent moved Misc. Application (IDA) No. 84 of 1992 for setting aside the Award of the Labour Court dated September 12, 1991. The Misc. Application was allowed and by the order dated March 9, 1994 the Award dated September 12, 1991 was set aside. The Reference was heard afresh after giving liberty to the parties to lead evidence. The Reference resulted in an Award on June 30, 1994 by which the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the first Respondent at the Nashik factory of the petitioners with full back wages from April 5, 1984. This Award is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) MR. R. S. Pai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the first Respondent has already been reinstated, joined service at Nashik factory and he is working there. Hence, the only issue that remains to be considered in the present Writ Petition is whether the direction in the Award for payment of back wages with effect from April 5, 1984 till the date the Petitioner was actually reinstated in service with continuity of service in the Nashik factory, is justified.