DESH SEWAK FOUNDRY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos.125, 126, 168 of 2008 as also 862 and 869 of 2009 arising out of adjudication of Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos.3955, 2729, 3951, 3965 and 3964 respectively vide a common judgment dated 25.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge are being taken up together for decision as these are inter-connected.

(2.) For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from LPA No.126 of 2008.

(3.) Respondent No.2 Ajit Singh was working as a Turner with the appellant, a partnership firm. There were two units, one was workshop unit whereas the other one was foundry unit. Claiming financial difficulties and losses as also circumstances beyond the control of the Management of the firm, the appellant had set up a case for closure of the workshop unit. Closure notice dated 28.9.1984 was referred to with further assertion that all the workers in the said department had been informed about the closure notice and had been asked to collect payment of their legal dues in accordance with Section 25FFF read with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The concerned departments including the Labour Commissioner, Punjab had been informed. Since no workman turned up to collect his dues in terms of closure notice of 28.9.1984, the employer sent payment of compensation to all workers in terms of provisions of the Act, but the workmen did not receive the same.