SOL PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise between the same parties, and in relation to the same subject matter. The petitioner is common. The employee, by name G. Pentaiah, figures as respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, he is referred to as the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent was employed with the petitioner industry. The petitioner introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, in the year 1995. The respondent submitted an application under that scheme, and it is stated that the application was accepted in the year 1997. The petitioner became a sick industry, in the year 1999, even before the VRS benefits were extended to the respondent.

(3.) IT is stated that in the proceedings before BIFR, the revival of the unit is ruled out and the winding up was suggested. The matter is said to be pending before the AAIFR. The respondent filed M. P. No. 54 of 2002, before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"), for recovery of the amount payable under the VRS, Leave Encashment, Bonus, etc. The labour Court passed an order, dated 1. 4. 2003, allowing the claim. Stating that the order in M. P. No. 54 of 2002 is not implemented, the respondent filed e. P. No. 12 of 2007, under Section 11-B of the Act. The Labour Court passed an order dated 21. 1. 2008, directing attachment of the furniture and other articles, in the house of the Managing Director. W. P. No. 10191 of 2005 is filed against the order in M. P. No. 54 of 2002 and W. P. No. 2921 of 2008 is filed against the order in E. P. No. 12 of 2007.