LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which requires adjudication in this petition relates to the power of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. We have to decide whether the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer can reject a demand raised by the workman employed in an industry.

(2.) THE petitioners-Lal Chand, Karambir and Jagdish Singh were appointed in the service of M/s. Koma Engineers, Gurgaon on April 1, 1985, January 1, 1984 and February 1, 1980, respectively on different posts. Services of all the petitioners were terminated with effect from December 21, 1994 by oral orders. The petitioners filed demand notices dated January 17, 1995 before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, raising industrial dispute against the termination of their services on the ground of violation of Section 25-E of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947 Act') as well as the principles of natural justice. These demand notices were, sent to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 held conciliation proceedings but finally rejected the demand notices vide Annexures P4, P5 and P6 by holding that the management has closed the establishment and the services of the petitioners had not been terminated.

(3.) THE petitioners have seriously challenged the theory of closure of the establishment. It has been pleaded by them that the factory is continuously running. According to them the Sales Tax Registration has not been surrendered by the industry and its bank accounts are being operated regularly. The workmen further pleaded that the Respondent No. 3 was supplying its products to M/s. Eicher Limited and M/s. Escorts Limited, Faridabad. Similarly liners were being sent to Yamunanager and Karnal. According to the workmen, the theory of closure was innovated by the employer in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the workmen to be continued in service.