CHANAKYA RESTAURANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE on similar set of facts, almost same relief has been claimed in both the writ petitions, on request of counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner gave a notice of closure under Section 25 (F) (F) (F) to the Labour Commissioner on 29. 11. 2002. It appears that the matter was taken up in conciliation by the Labour Commissioner and dispute having not been resolved between the petitioner and the concerned workman, a special order under Section 10 (K) of the Industrial Dispute (Rajasthan Amendment) Act 1970 (herein after to be referred as the Act) was issued by the State Government on 3. 2. 2003 restraining the petitioner from closing down the establishment proposed w. e. f. 4. 2. 2003. Certain necessary directions were also issued for continuing the employees already working in the establishment in service and make them payment accordingly as they were receiving before the intended closure. The above directions directions were to be effective for one year from the date of issuing of the special order i. e. 3. 2. 2003. Subsequently, since the petitioner failed to comply with the directions issued in the special order under Section 10 (K) dated 3. 2. 2003, an application under Section 33 (C) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the concerned workman before the Labour Commissioner. Initially, the applications was filed for two months salary and other emoluments. The labour Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 15. 9. 2003 computed and determined a sum of Rs. 2,96,200. 50 in favour of the concerned workmen. The order dated 15. 9. 2003 is also under challenge in the second writ petition No. 6436/2003 by the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned orders as also the provisions of the Act.