LAWS(MPH)-2003-1-73

KUBER EXTRUSIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LAXMINARAYANA ALIAS BHAILAL

Decided On January 14, 2003
KUBER EXTRUSIONS PVT.LTD. Appellant
V/S
LAXMINARAYAN @ BHAILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the writ and hence, it merits dismissal.

(2.) The petitioner seeks to assail an award, dated January 9, 2002 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court whereby the reference made to Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act for deciding the legality and validity of the termination order of the respondent has been answered in respondent's favour. It is held that respondent was in the employment of petitioner since 1990 that he has worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calender year, that no, charge-sheet or inquiry was held before terminating the services of the respondent, that the impugned termination is an illegal retrenchment because no prior notice and compensation was given to respondent as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act prior to impugned termination. Accordingly, direction of reinstatement, with full back wages has been given while answering the reference on merits giving rise to its challenge in this writ by the employer under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the petitioner had purchased the Unit subsequently, and hence, they are not liable to take over the liability of respondent. I, find no substance in this submission. Firstly, there does not appear to be any finding on this issue rendered by the Labour Court. Secondly, the sale of the unit by earlier owner to petitioner is of no consequence so far as the rights of the respondent are concerned. Thirdly, respondent continues to be in the employment of the Unit irrespective of the fact, whether the ownership of Unit is with "A" or "B". Fourthly, even if in the case of termination, the contract of employment for its enforcement under the law remains alive in Court and no relief can be denied to the respondent that the unit was sold and purchased by some other person.