Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 70 (UTT)

JAGIR SINGH v. DURRUNG STEELS LIMITED

2015-02-23

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All the petitioners were the labourers under the employment of respondent no. 1. After rendering service for 12 years in the company, they were retrenched. So, all the petitioners challenged their retrenchment with the prayer for reinstatement and back-wages. The Labour Court passed the award on 26.3.1996 directing their reinstatement with 50 per cent wages for the period since termination to the date of award. The premise of this award was that the retrenchment of all the labourers was violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as the State Act). So, the employer filed the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was eventually made over to Uttarakhand High Court for hearing and the same is bearing number 962/2002. This writ petition was dismissed in non-prosecution on 2.9.2003. After such dismissal of this writ petition, an application was moved by the labourers under Section 6H(1) of the State Act on 10.12.2003 to the State Government for recovery of the wages w.e.f. 8.1.1991 to 31.11.2003 to the tune of Rs. 62,14,275/-. Deputy Labour Commissioner issued the recovery certificate by an order dated 23.12.2004. Meanwhile, further application was moved by the labourers in 2005 under the same provision of the State Act claiming an additional amount of Rs. 21,06,000/- w.e.f. 1.12.2003 to 8.11.2005. Thus, they wanted the recovery of a sum total of Rs. 83,20,275/-. The employer moved their representation/objections before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and on such move, the recovery was recalled by an order dated 10.3.2006. 2. It is also pertinent to mention that while these proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner were going on, the writ petition no. 962/2002 came up for hearing and this Court vide its judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 confirmed the award of the Labour Court. 3. The argument of learned Counsel for the employer before the Assistant Labour Commissioner was that their Unit was closed some time in the later part of the year 1996 because of non-payment of debt due to the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (for short, UPFC) and the Unit was finally put under the lock and key by the UPFC on 5.1.1997. 4. The above argument was accepted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar. 4. The above argument was accepted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar. So, the direction was issued to the labourers to move for computation of their wages with effect from the date of retrenchment till 5.1.1997. This order of Assistant Labour Commissioner was challenged by the labourers by way of filing the writ petition no. 1825/2006 (MS), wherein this Court though entertained the objections of the employer, but was of the view that such objections were only vague and nothing was shown to the Court to the effect that the Unit of the employer had actually been closed down, and if the closure of the Unit is to be accepted for a moment, then it was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 6W of the State Act. As per the provisions of Section 6W, the employer has to obtain permission of the State Government for the closure and no such application was moved the employer. So, the Court was of the view that the findings of the Assistant Labour Commissioner in its order dated 28.9.2006 were patently incorrect and based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, this Court vide its judgment dated 7.4.2010, quashed the order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to decide the application of the petitioners (labourers) in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-H(1) of the State Act. As per the such provision, if any money is due to a workman from an employer under an award, the workman may make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the collector, who shall proceed to recover the same as if it were the arrears of land revenue. 5. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 7.4.2010, the workmen moved to the authority concerned for computation and recovery of their amount and their such move was resisted by the employer by way of filing the objections, wherein the authority accepted the papers submitted by the employer regarding the closure of their unit in later part of 1996 and ultimately on 5.1.1997 at the instance of UPFC. So, the authority only admitted 50 per cent wages since the date of retrenchment till 18.7.1996 when the Unit was ultimately closed. So, the authority only admitted 50 per cent wages since the date of retrenchment till 18.7.1996 when the Unit was ultimately closed. So, this amount comes to the tune of Rs. 16,43,391. The authority in its judgment has held that any order/recovery certificate for rest of the disputed amount cannot be issued until it is settled on computation by any competent court. This finding of the authority is based on Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). It reads as under:- “Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months]. 6. Now, the labourers, feeling aggrieved with the said finding of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 17th July, 2010, has come up once again before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that once the award was confirmed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 09.08.2005, the recovery of money is to be made under Section 6-H (1) of the State Act. 8. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the employer, by way of filing the counter affidavit, has shown to this Court that their Unit, based at Roorkee, namely, M/s Durrung Steels Limited, was put under the lock and key by UPFC and Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 read with Section 46-B of that Act has overriding effect on every other Acts as far as the recovery of money is concerned. Such provisions have been cited in the paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed by one of the directors of the Unit, namely, Mr. Amar Singh. In the counter affidavit, the papers have been enclosed indicating the approval of UPFC for the purchase of entire plant of M/s Durrung Steels Limited by M/s Amritvarsha Udyog Limited, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. Such provisions have been cited in the paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed by one of the directors of the Unit, namely, Mr. Amar Singh. In the counter affidavit, the papers have been enclosed indicating the approval of UPFC for the purchase of entire plant of M/s Durrung Steels Limited by M/s Amritvarsha Udyog Limited, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. Pursuant to this approval, a sale deed-cum-hypothecation deed was also executed between the UPFC and M/s Amritvarsha Udyog Limited, Kotdwar. 9. At this juncture, learned Counsel of the petitioners argued that though, M/s Durrung Steels Limited and M/s Amritvarsha Udyog Limited, Kotdwar are the separate companies, but the address of one of the directors i.e. respondent no.3 is the same viz. 10-A, Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar. 10. The Court is not impressed with this argument because at a time, one person can be director of two separate companies. 11. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that when the Unit had been closed down entirely and put under the lock and key in the later part of 1996, then there was no question of payment of wages to the petitioners after such closure of the Unit. So, vide the impugned order, it has rightly been held that a total amount of Rs. 16,43,391/- is payable by the company for the period w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 18.7.1996, and the same be recovered and distributed among all the petitioners as per their entitlement/share. 12. As regards the compensation, the Court directs that the employer will pay wages of six months’ @ last drawn salary to each of employees. 13. The petition stands disposed of.