KALYAN PUR CEMENT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute involved in this writ petition arises out of termination of services of respondent no. 3, Babu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') by the management of M/s Kalyanpur Cement Limited. The order led to an industrial dispute and, eventually, reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, Patna, in the following terms. ''Whether termination of services of Shri Babu Ram Khalasi (Ticket no. 420), Mechanical Engineering Department, Kalyanpur Lime & Cement Works Ltd. Banjari is proper and justified ? If not what relief he is entitled to?

(2.) THE proceedings before the Labour Court were far from smooth. On receipt of the reference on 28.7.77 notice was issued to the parties pursuant to which the management appeared on the very next date but instead of filing written statement started objecting to the maintainability of the reference firstly on the ground that the statement of demand on which the reference was based had not been served on the management and then on the ground that the Government of Bihar was not the appropriate Government for making the reference in view of the fact that cement had been declared a controlled industry under section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It next sought to get the reference disposed of in terms of an alleged compromise petition which was objected to by the workman on the ground that his consent had not been taken. The compromise was rejected on 7.11.81. This led to filing of CWJC No. 37 of 1982 by the managment in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed sometime in the year 1993. It was only at that stage that the management filed its written statement.

(3.) AFTER passing the order dated 8.4.93, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the reference in view of the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 37 of 1982 for time bound disposal of the reference case within three months. The management examined its witnesses thereafter and finally closed its case. By judgment and Award dated 10.5.93 the Labour Court held that the impugned order was out and out a simple termination order amounting to 'retrenchment ' under section 2(OO) of the Act. The Labour Court further held that in absence of payment of notice pay as required under section 25F of the said Act, the order was bad and illegal for non -compliance of the said provision. On these findings, the workman was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits which he would have been entitled to had he remained in service. The said judgment and Award has been challenged in the other writ petition in hand i.e. CWJC No. 9748 of 1993.