SHREE KRISHNA PAPER MILL AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED BAHADURGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the workmen with 50% back wages.

(2.) THE matter of reference before the Labour Court was in respect of about 18 workmen, who complained of having been prevented from resuming duty and they had been treated as terminated from service and the question sent for adjudication was whether the services of the workmen named in 18 individual references had been terminated or had the workmen abandoned services by absenting wilfully.

(3.) THE award of the labour Court was challenged among other grounds that the strike itself was unjustified and illegal having been resorted to by the workmen during the subsistence of a settlement that had been brought about between the management and the workmen under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The further contention was that insistence of the management to secure an undertaking from the workman could not be said to be unfair labour practice or illegal, in view of the conduct of the workmen who had resorted to a strike in spite of the subsistence of a settlement. They were, therefore, justified in expecting an undertaking to be given and the failure of the workmen to turn up for duty after such undertaking ought not to be taken as termination of service by the management. The result of the absence of the workmen for a period of more than 10 days following the strike, which according to the management was illegal, entailed automatic abandonment of service in view of the Standing Orders that provided for the names being struck off, if a workman absented himself without taking prior sanction of leave for 8 days. Shri Mutneja, learned Counsel for the Management further argued that the Management did not actually press for such a hard course and in fact offered at the time of conciliation proceedings to take back all the workmen to join back but only the workmen did not join the factory. The Labour Court's award was also challenged as being inconsistent in holding at one place that the management had not passed any order of termination of service but at the same time directing reinstatement of workmen when the finding was that they had not been terminated.