THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, CHANDIGARH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HISAR (HARYANA) AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited has filed the present writ petition for quashing the award dated 4.9.1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are that respondent No. 2 Sham Sunder Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was appointed as an Electrician vide order dated 27.2.1985 (Annexure R-2/1). His post was purely temporary and he was to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining. It was also provided that during the period of probation his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The services of the workman along with others were terminated vide order dated 5.1.1988 (Annexure P-2). The reason given in the said order is that the Board of Directors in the 61st meeting held on 31.8.1987 regarding closure of Tohana plant, services of the officials named therein were dispensed with as no longer required. The workman is at Serial No. 10 in the said order dated 5.1.1988 (Annexure P-2). The workman raised an industrial dispute against the order dispensing with his services. The same was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the State Government vide reference order dated 15.7.1988 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').

(3.) The stand of the Management before the learned Tribunal was that the services of the workman had been dispensed with on the ground of closure of Tohana plant and that the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Act were inapplicable. The learned Labour Court answered the reference against the Management. Accordingly the Management has come in writ petition in this Court assailing the said award of the Labour Court. The Management in its writ petition has urged that the order dispensing with the services of the workman was owing to closure of Tohana plant in compliance with the decision of the Haryana Government with the stipulation that the workman amongst other employees would be paid retrenchment compensation. It is, however, stated that since the discharge of the workman was due to closure of activities, the same does not amount to retrenchment. Therefore the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are inapplicable. It is also stated that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have wrongly been applied by the Labour Court. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sunder Singh and another v. Beas Construction Board, New Delhi, 1979 AIR(P&H) 1 to contend that closure of an undertaking payment of retrenchment compensation is not a condition precedent in cases falling under Section 25- FFF of the Act. It is stated that the findings of the learned Tribunal are perverse and are the result of not only misreading of the evidence and material on record but are also based on conjectures and surmises.