M/S AGGARWAL TEXTILE MILLS Vs. SMT. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 24.5.1985 passed by the Labour Court under section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as Act).

(2.) The respondents 1 to 8 in this writ petition are workmen in the petitioner's textile mills. According to them, they were employed by the Petitioner in May 1973 to July, 1976 and their services were retrenched without payment of retrenchment compensation and they were also not paid the earned wages, service compensation, bonus and notice pay. A notice of the application filed by the respondents was given to the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear instead of service of notice. Accordingly, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte by an order dated 20.12.1979 and the matter was posted to 29.1.1980 for ex parte evidence. At that time the representative of the petitioner's mills appeared though he did not file any application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, he participated in the inquiry and cross-examined the witnesses of the workmen and also gave his evidence as RW.1. On the basis of material on record the Labour Court held that respondents 1 to 8 are entitled to the amounts as shown in the 'Annexure A' to the order and directed the petitioner to pay the said amounts to the workmen. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) There is no dispute of the fact that the respondents 1 to 8 worked as workmen of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the relationship of master and servant came to an end in June/July, 1976 when the factory was sealed and closed by Excise Department on 28.10.76 and the dispute in regard to the lock-out declared by the petitioner was adjudicated in favour of the petitioner and that the claim of some other employees was negatived by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to any relief and the order of the Labour Court Annexure P.4 is liable to be set aside. Though the petitioner proceeded ex parte its partner Prem Sagar who also filed the present writ petition, participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. He cross-examined the witness AW.1 for workmen. He also gave evidence as RW.1. On consideration of the material on record the Labour Court found that the respondents 1 to 8 were not paid the retrenchment compensation and one month notice period wages. The undisputed fact is that the management had not filed any written statement controverting the claim of the workmen i.e. respondents 1 to 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to place any record to show that the order of the Labour Court is illegal or invalid. Ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case and adduce evidence but for the reasons best known to him, the petitioner did not file any written statement nor he produced any other evidence except examining Prem Sagar who is partner of the petitioner as RW.1. There is nothing on record that the respondents have been paid any compensation or wages for the notice period before retrenching them. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the order passed by the Labour Court. I am of the view that the Labour Court after considering the evidence of AW.1 and RW. 1 rightly allowed the (sic) of the claim of the workmen and awarded the sums as shown in Annexure A attached to its order.