RANJIT TALKIES Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY , Ranjit Talkies was run by a partnership firm in the name of Chitra Pradarshan up to 1.4.1975. It has been alleged that after expiry of the lease and licence of the above firm the establishment was closed. The workers at that time were given retrenchment compensation as per the agreement with the employer; There has also been a condition that in case the appointments are given in future, the concerned workmen shall be given preferential employment as per provisions of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Admittedly, the establishment was again started from 11.9.1975 not by the same partnership firm but by another person namely Roop Narain Shah. Since the workmen retrenched earlier were not given fresh appointment as per provisions of Section 25 -H of the Act, a dispute was raised by the union and the same was referred by the State Government to Labour Court for adjudication vide Notification dated 26.9.1981 in the terms that whether 22 workmen mentioned in the Schedule were entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service.

(2.) THE statement of claim was submitted by the respondent union In reply, it has been alleged that the present management run by Shah Roop Narain had no connection with the earlier management of the partnership firm Chitra Pradarshan and further the present management is not bound by the settlement as executed above by the earlier management. To substantiate their claim, union submitted the evidence to the extent that two sons of Shah Roop Narain namely; Shah Anil Kumar and Shah Sunil Kumar were partners of the earlier firm i.e. Chitra Pradarshan. It was only to remove old employees and engage new persons the establishment was closed temporarily and again re -started just after five months with the changed name by the rather Shah Roop Narain. No evidence, whatsoever, was led on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the evidence so led on behalf of the respondent union in spite of repealed opportunities given.

(3.) MR . Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after having entered into compromise with the earlier employer the concerned workmen were estopped from seeking relief of reinstatement from the new firm and even otherwise they could get preferential employment only if the same establishment at all is re -started. It has further been submitted that the present management had no relation, whatsoever, with the earlier management. It has also been alleged that violation of Section 25 -H of the Act has not been proved at all.