SURAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. RAVI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated May 16, 2008, passed in C.W.P. No. 215 of 2005, titled Ravi Dutt and Others v. State of H.P. and Others. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a writ petition was filed by the petitioners Ravi Dutt and Mast Ram alleging that the petitioners are the citizens of India and they are aggrieved because of the actions of respondents. Suraj Industries Limited (present appellant) was impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition. It was alleged that the members of the petitioners' union were engaged in service by respondent No. 3 and they were in service since 1993-94 onwards. It was alleged that in an illegal and arbitrary way, respondent No. 3, by putting undue and uncalled for pressure upon the members of the petitioners' union, have terminated their services contrary to the provisions of the Act. It was alleged that the workers were called one by one in the night by respondent No. 3 and by use of musclemen, the workers were forced to enter into agreements on January 31, 2005. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 had preferred an application for permission for retrenchment of the workmen as per the provisions of the Act and the Government, vide its letter, dated February 12, 2004, (Annexure P-4), granted permission for the retrenchment of 32 workmen only out of 141 workmen, but on certain conditions. It was alleged that the act of respondent No. 3 in closing the Unit is contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as contrary to the public interest and, therefore, the petitioners filed the writ petition.

(2.) It was further alleged that respondent No. 3 had applied for permission of closure of the Unit, which was refused by the Government and despite that, by way of an alleged agreement, dated January 31, 2005, members of the petitioners' Union were forced to enter into an agreement, which was contrary to the provisions of Section 25-N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Company could not have been closed. The petitioners alleged that they have been authorized by the Union in its meeting held on March 6, 2005, Annexure P-1 to take suitable action in the Court of law for vindicating their genuine grievances and the petitioners being the President and the General Secretary of the Union were authorized to take action. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

(3.) In reply filed by respondent No. 3/appellant, it was pleaded that as per the agreement, dated January 31, 2005, every worker including the petitioners voluntarily submitted their resignation letters and accepted the amount due and payable to them and have also withdrawn cheques issued to them and as such they are estopped from filing the writ petition. It was further pleaded that since the settlement has been arrived at by the individual worker in their individual capacity, as such, the Union has nothing to do, as alleged by the petitioners. It was also pleaded that the respondent No. 3 had informed the officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government vide letter dated February 8, 2005 alongwith a list of the workmen with whom the settlement had been arrived, which included the present two petitioners. A copy of these communications was also addressed to respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. It was further pleaded that vide letter dated March 22, 2005, the Labour Inspector of respondent No. 2 had acknowledged and confirmed the factum of agreement/settlement arrived at with 132 employees/workers of respondent No. 3.