JARDINE HENDERSON LIMITED Vs. RAMJEE PANDIT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 12.02.2011 whereby, the objection as to maintainability for want of jurisdiction has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, in the year, 1988 about 101 workmen were retrenched and consequently a dispute arose which was referred for conciliation. After the conciliation failed, the Government of Bihar referred the matter for adjudication vide notification No. 5/88 dated 03.02.1988. An award dated 25.11.1993 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal upholding the order of retrenchment of 101 employees. The said award was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 (R) and by order dated 23.08.2002 this Court set-aside the award dated 25.11.1993 and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits to 101 workmen. The petitioner-Management preferred L.P.A. No. 577 of 2002 which was dismissed on 30.04.2003 and the Special Leave Petition being Civil Appeal No. 4466 of 2004 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Out of 101 workmen, 30 workmen preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 811 of 2003 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2007. Another Contempt petition being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 638 of 2007 was filed by 7 workmen out of group of 71 workmen who had earlier settled their claim with the Management and the said Contempt application was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2009. Thereafter, 10 workmen filed M.J. Case No. 70 of 2010 and 6 workmen filed M.J. Case No. 134 of 2010 under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act for computation of wages and other consequential benefits. The petitioner-Management raised a preliminary objection which has been rejected vide common order dated 12.02.2012 and the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceeding.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the workmen stating that the workmen in the present case were not party in the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 638 of 2007. The alleged settlement made in February, 1994 was for the payment for the period prior to retrenchment that is, prior to 13th January, 1989. The copy of alleged agreement has not been produced before the Court. In view of order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 (R), all the workmen including the present respondents are entitled for monetary and consequential benefits.