S KUMARS LTD Vs. BHERULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid bunch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.3932, 3942, 4361, 4364, 4367, 4383, 4389, 4390, 4467, 4469, 4470, 4472, 4473, 4518, 4595, 4596, 4600, 4601, 4794, 4795, 4819, 4821 & 4823 of 2017. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order. Petitioner M/s S. Kumars Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management') has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the sustainability of the award dated 02/05/2017 passed in Reference case No.59/2012/IDR (Bherulal s/o Ramchandra Kumawat Vs. Factory Manager, M/s S.Kumars Limited) by the Labour Court, Dewas. On an application preferred by the respondent Bherulal (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the State Government vide its order dated 27/11/2012 has made a reference of the following dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Dewas consequent upon failure of conciliation proceedings. The terms of reference reads as under: <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-57.jpg">

(2.) The workman was a permanent employee working in the 'folding unit' since the year 1987 drawing monthly salary. According to him, he was given to understand by the President and Secretary of the Textile Mazdoor Union, Dewas that if the workmen of the said unit submit resignation from service, they shall be paid retrenchment compensation, gratuity, 18 months salary on the basis of last pay drawn and in addition payment of the difference of revision of pay underway through the agreement/settlement, as the Management intended to close down the 'folding unit' and if for any reason, the said unit is not closed, the workman shall be taken back in service. The workman under the circumstances signed on the supplied computerized letter of resignation with blank spaces prepared in the office of the Management. Neither the name of the applicant, father's name, card number and date were mentioned. On 28/04/2011, a cheque for Rs. 1,26,132/- was handed over to the Workman. However, the workman was betrayed as neither 18 months pay was paid and the difference of revision of pay was paid nor the retrenchment compensation was paid. The 'folding unit' was also not closed instead contract labours have been engaged for carrying out the same work. Under the circumstances, the Workman never voluntarily tendered resignation nor the conditions stipulated were fulfilled. As such, the cessation of the employment was a result of retrenchment otherwise than by way of disciplinary action without payment of retrenchment compensation tantamounting to unfair labour practice. Hence, the action of the Management is illegal. With the aforesaid facts, the Workman initially served a notice through advocate on 03/10/2011 (Annexure P/4). The Management replied the same on 16/10/2011 (Annexure P/5) wherein it is stated that no assurance was extended by the Management of any nature whatsoever as claimed by the Workman. In fact, the Workman had tendered resignation voluntarily having not opted to work in different unit. As a matter of fact, acceding to the demand of the workman, the gratuity amount was determined at the rate of 30 days of wages/month instead of 15 days wages/month. Under the circumstances, upon submission of resignation, there is no employee employer relationship between the Workman and the Management. During the course of conciliation proceedings, the Management appears to have improved its case inter alia contending that the Workman was extended the option either to work in the same unit on piece rate basis or on transfer to work in the 'dying unit'. The Workman did not avail the aforesaid option and thereafter, resigned from service.

(3.) Before the Labour Court, both the parties reiterated the aforesaid stand in the form of pleadings and led evidence.