AWADESH GOSWAMI Vs. K G KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. The disposition by Labour Court The award under challenge at the instance of the workmen is a finding that the retrenchment of the workmen was unjustified. Still the Labour Court had awarded only Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to each of them in lieu of reinstatement. II. Facts leading to the list

(2.) The 10 workmen, who were seeking for reference before the Labour Court through individual applications to the Government were indeed the residual lot. Earlier 23 persons felt aggrieved by the same order of retrenchment by the management, but 4 persons, however, were later taken back and 19 of them had sought through demand notices complaining of illegal termination. The Government of Haryana rejected the demand that led to filing of the writ petition before this Court seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus for a direction against the Government for reference to a Labour Court. The reference was ultimately made by the Government and the persons that prosecuted the case before the Labour Court numbered 10, who continue as a flock till the cases are brought for decision by this Court now.

(3.) The stand-off between the workmen and the management is alleged to have began when the workmen through their Union had made a charter of demands, which was not favourably considered. The management had sought for some undertaking from the workmen and when some of them had conceded to the management's dictates, 23 of them, who were active functionaries in the worker's Union, found themselves singled out. The management declared a lockout on September 5, 1991 and continued the status till June 7, 1992. They had sought for permission from the Government to close the factory but permission was not granted. Ultimately when the factory resumed operations, the petitioners, among others, had not been permitted to join on the plea that the charge-sheets had been levelled against them for misconduct and they had been removed on proof of such misconduct. The workmen claimed that they were never apprised of any imputations of misconduct and that there had even been passed orders of retrenchment. The issue said to have come to light only during the conciliation proceedings and that was when the matters came to a head culminating in the reference to the Labour Court for adjudication. The management had not expressed themselves anywhere in the written statement that they were seeking for permission before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct, but, however, they produced several witnesses to establish the so-called misconduct that the workmen had been charged with. III. The law as stated in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.