OMBIR SINGH Vs. HARYANA BREWERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are the three sets of writ petitions filed by workman- namely Ombir singh (C. W. P. No. 7175 of 2004), Dharam Parkash (C. W. P. No. 6953 of 2004) and Ashok Kumar Bhal (C. W. P. No. 5906 of 2004 ). Since common question of law and fact is involved in all these three petitions, we propose to disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners were the workmen of respondent no. 2. Haryana Breweries Limited, G. T. Road, murthal, Sonepat, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the management ). Pursuant to notification dated 5-6-1996 issued by the Haryana State regarding imposition of prohibition policy in the State, the management closed its unit situated at Murthal (Haryana) w. e. f. 4-12-1996 and the necessary permission in this regard was accorded by the haryana Government under section 25-Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act), on the following terms and conditions:-

(2.) THEREAFTER, the petitioners were paid closure compensation, as per their entitlement, in the month of December, 1996. On coming to know that juniors to them have been retained in service by the management, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute under section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act) challenging their termination on the ground that their services have been terminated but juniors to them are still working with the management, which is in contravention of provisions of section 25g of the Act. Their services were terminated on 4-12-1996 and they were paid compensation on 9-12-1996/30-1-1997 (in the case of petitioner Ombir Singh), 7-12-1996 (in the case of petitioner Dharam Parkash)and on 16-12-1996 (in the case of petitioner Ashok kumar Bahl), violating the provisions of section 25f of the Act. Conciliation proceedings were initiated but to no avail and accordingly labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Sonepat submitted failure report to the Government under section 12 (5) of the Act. In the meantime, the management got published a notice in the newspaper on 15-5-1998 about re-opening of the factory during May-June, 1998 and also invited ex-employees to apply within ten days. It was also mentioned in the notice that if any ex-employee fails to reciprocate the offer, it shall be deemed that they are unwilling to accept the same. It was further clarified that the names of ex-employees who would be required to report would put on the Notice Board within five days. The petitioners went to the factory premises of the management and applied for consideration of their name of re-employment but they were not taken back. During this process, a development took place. The industrial disputes raised by the petitioners were referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioners submitted their claim statement. Violation of section 25h of the Act was also claimed. The management contested the reference by filing written reply to it. The parties were given the opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate the pleas to corroborate the issues struck upon the pleadings. The claim of the petitioners have been dismissed vide impugned awards dated 22-10-2003. Which have been made the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions wherein they have also claimed violation of Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (for brevity, Rules of 1957 ).

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 management filed the "written statement in all the three writ petitions separately, but with similar pleadings. The stand is that after lifting of prohibition policy, the factory was sought to be re-started, as such, as per condition No. 2 imposed by Haryana Government-while according sanction for closure of factory, two advertisements were issued in two leading newspaper, namely punjab Kesari and The Tribune on 15-5-1998 and 16-5-1998 respectively, inviting all ex-employees to give applications for re-employment. The employees who submitted the applications were re-employed accordingly. But the petitioners failed to submit their applications within stipulated period, as such, they were not re-employed. After 4-12-1996 the factory, was completely closed down and as such there was no occasion for the management to retain workers including the petitioners, when there was no work in the factory. Thus, there was no violation of the provisions of section 25g of the Act. Management's further stand is that since the present case of closure and not of retrenchment, provisions of. sections 25g and 25h are not attracted at all. Moreover, on account of closure of factory, there was no occasion for the management to comply with section 25g of the Act. Similarly, an opportunity of re-employment was offered to the ex-employees by means of advertisement, hence there was no violation of even section 25h of the Act. Their further stand is that they have complied with the order of closure in letter and the spirit and that the Labour Court has rightly applied its mind to the facts of the case and has rightly dismissed the claim.