HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION AND TUBEWELL CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, AMBALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition shows how the Corporation seeks to deny the legal rights of the workmen of the Corporation which stands closed since July, 2002.

(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala whereby, it has been directed that the Corporation shall make the payment of retrenchment compensation as per length of service within two months from the said date i.e. 06.12.2013 with 9% interest from 01.07.2002 till actual payment.

(3.) The case has a chequered history, which would be clear from the perusal of the paper book. Some of the workmen had challenged the closure of the petitioner-corporation and the matter came before the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12377 of 2002, R.P. Gupta and another vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 26.09.2002 (Annexure P-4). It was held by the Division Bench that the proper procedure under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') had not been followed and the appropriate Government was to pass the order on the said application regarding the closure of the Corporation and the consequent retrenchment of its employees. Thereafter, some of the respondentsworkmen filed a representation for grant of retrenchment compensation on 18.02.2009 (Annexure P-6). Respondents no. 2 to 9 filed CWP No. 21213 of 2008 whereby, they took the plea that the legal notice submitted had not been decided and accordingly, this Court on 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) issued directions that the respondents were to take a final decision and pass a speaking order on the legal notice. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure P-10) was passed and the case of the respondents-workmen was rejected on the ground that they were not workmen and being assigned duties of Head Assistants alike the duties of Head Clerk and their work was of supervisory nature and, therefore, they could not be termed as workman under Section 2 (s) of the Act and not entitled to retrenchment compensation under the Act.