Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1385 (PAT)

Ram Pukar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-05

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11 November, 1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 4530 of 1984 : The Management of M/s T.R. Flour Mills, Muzaffarpur V/s.The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. The employer M/s T.R, Flour Mills, Muzaffarpur, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was challenging the award of the labour court, Muzaffarpur dated 10 February, 1994. In so far as the workmen are concerned, they are respondents 3 to 20. The labour court came to the conclusion that the closure which had been undertaken by the management of the industry was not bona fide and was only a camouflage to induct two new workmen notwithstanding the fact that a new policy had been inducted to take over the industry; that the workmen concerned had continuous service as on the date of the closure and regard being had to the circumstances that the employer could not satisfy the labour court on a bona fide closure the workmen concerned were entitled to full back wages for the period from the date the industry was closed and reinstatement with full back wages. 3. At the time when this matter was taken up for hearing no one has appeared on behalf of the management. The first aspect which has to be taken care of is the fact that as from the impugned judgment on the writ petition some respondents settled their disputes outside the Court and yet some respondents had died before the filing of the petition. The respondents who had settled their disputes outside the Court were respondents 13, 14, 17 and 19. The respondents who were intimated, to the learned Judge, as having died during the pendency of the petition were respondents 11 and 18. In so far as respondents 15, 16 and 20 are concerned, they had died before filing of the writ petition. 4. This appeal is being contested by respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,10 and 12. 5. The findings of the labour court are clear, to the effect, that the management had contravened the provisions of Section 25 FFA and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court has recorded that the plea of closure cannot be accepted. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,10 and 12. 5. The findings of the labour court are clear, to the effect, that the management had contravened the provisions of Section 25 FFA and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court has recorded that the plea of closure cannot be accepted. The labour court has also recorded that the management did not produce attendance register and salary register for the relevant period to indicate the average number of employees. The labour court has inferred that not less than 50 workmen were employed in the industry during the relevant period when closure is claimed. The labour court has also returned a finding, to the effect that in the resultant situation that the workmen were discontinued from employment was illegal and void. There was a relationship of employer and workmen between the parties, there was no basic change in management even after reconstitution of partnership firm nor had previous partnership was dissolved. The labour court has also noticed that the workmen concerned were in continuous service prior to the date of closure. 6. In these circumstances, the learned Judge has committed an error in certifying the award of the labour court as incorrect on the basis of facts and pleadings of the parties. The management could not show that the closure was bona fide. 7. In the circumstances, the judgment of the learned Judge dated 11 November, 1994 is set aside. The award of the labour court, Muzaffarpur stands. 8. As the management has not appeared and this appeal has been sustained by respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 as arrayed in the writ petition, the relief on the appeal will be limited to them. 9. The appeal succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.