HARYANA HANDLOOM WEAVERS APEX COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD PANIPAT (KARNAL) Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s Haryana Handloom Weavers Apex Co- operative Society Limited through its Managing Director takes strong exception to award annexure P-1, dated 12th April, 1990, rendered by Labour Court, Ambala, vide which respondent-workman Hakam Sain, has been reinstated with continuity of service and backwages. The obvious prayer of the petitioner is to quash order Annexure P-l.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that in the year 1979 due to heavy recurring losses 14 centres of the petitioner-society were closed and as a result thereof various employees were retrenched. Respondent-workman was also one of those who was retrenched along with other employees on account of closure of centres. He was asked to quit vide order dated Ist September, 1979, after fully complying with all the mandatory provisions as envisaged under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, after re- organisation, some sick centres were revived and as a result thereof the services of a Weaving Master were required. Keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, Pala Ram employee of the petitioner-society visited the house of the workman on 16.5.1982 and 17.5.1982 to give him notice regarding the vacancy and to offer him re- employment. On both the dates Pala Ram could not find workman at home, but was able to contact the wife of the workman who was told to inform him that he could present himself on the date for interview. Not only that, on 7th May, 1982, an advertisement for various posts who was also inserted in the Indian Express a daily newspaper with wide circulation, which had a note appended thereto that retrenched employees would be given preference over others. When despite oral information as also through the newspapers the workman evinced no interest in the matter, one Shri Leela Krishan was appointed on the post of Weaving Master. More than two years thereafter, the workman served a demand notice to the management which did not yield any result thus, necessitating reference which was made by Government to Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute between the parties to the litigation. Even though there was no dispute with regard to retrenchment of the workman on account of the closure of the petitioner's centres, yet the only issue framed by the Labour Court was whether the termination of the services of the petitioner were in order or not and if so to what relief he was entitled to. Inasmuch as, during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court, there was compromise between the parties, which was obviously resiled by the workman, the Labour Court had to frame another issue with regard to his being estopped from proceeding with the reference for the reason that he had settled the dispute with the management. The findings on both the issues were turned against the petitioner-society culminating into the award Annexure P-1, and referred to above, which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Before the matter is proceeded further, it requires to be mentioned that when the matter came up for motion hearing on November 20,1990, counsel representing the petitioner-Society stated that the Management was all the time keen to offer employment to respondent-workman but it is the workman who did not turn up. It was further stated that even today the management was willing to take back respondent-workman in employment. It is after noticing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel that notice of motion was issued for December 21, 1990. The matter, however, came up for admission purposes on March 21,1991 when writ was admitted and operation of Award, Annexure P-l, was stayed. Mr. Mutneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, has once again reiterated the stand of petitioner- society that the workman shall be taken back in service if he offers himself for employment. On merits, learned counsel contends that the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly point towards bona fide of petitioner-Management in re-employing respondent-workman in compliance with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and if the pleadings of the parties were considered in proper perspective, the only issue that should have been framed by the Labour Court was to be with regard to the bona fide of the management in offering re-employment to the workman. It is further contended that the said issue in view of the pleadings and evidence available on records ought to have been returned in favour of petitioner-Management. It is further the case of petitioner that workman who had undertaken to withdraw all court cases including the present one in case bonus of earlier years was paid to him, could not possibly continue with the present case before the Labour Court as the settlement arrived at between the parties was binding upon the workman and he was also estopped by his act and conduct to agitate the matter.