ORDER : A . The Petitions: 1. These two Writ Petitions challenge the same award dated 16/06/2020 made in O.P. No. 18 of 2019 by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Management and the Workman filed them and, as such, are deposed of by this Common Order. B. The Workman’s Case: 2. The case of the workman is that the Management has been in the business of manufacturing dry cell batteries, torch lights, etc. since the year 1905. Union Carbide India Limited, which killed lakhs of people in Bhopal, was the major shareholder. ‘Eveready’ Brand Cells was a successful brand, and through its units in Guindy and Thiruvotriyur, Chennai, huge profits ran into hundreds of crores of rupees throughout. The Management had several operations throughout the country. While so, it decided to shift its operations to Assam, only to get rid of the workforce and to employ badlis and new hands in violation of all labour welfare legislations. The Office bearers of one of the Trade Unions were in collusion with the management, and taking advantage of the same, the management entered into bogus settlements, as if the workmen resigned/voluntarily retired in June 2018. Thereafter, it non-employed the petitioner with effect from 13/11/2018, who did not agree to the bogus settlement. The petitioner raised a dispute. After committing to attend conciliation, the management issued a transfer order transferring the workman to its Assam unit on 10/01/2019. Hence, non- employment is illegal. No proper procedure was followed while closing the unit. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. C. The Management’s Case: 3. The management's case is that, due to the import of dry cells from China and other factors, the unit in Chennai became unviable in 2017. The management entered into settlements with the workmen under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the ID Act). Two hundred fifty-three workmen applied for Voluntary Retirement, and their services came to an end on 30/06/2018. Following the same, the services of the managerial staff became redundant. However, instead of terminating these 35 managerial staff, they were transferred to be accommodated in other units of the management. The workman in question is one such managerial staff, who was transferred to Assam on 10/01/2019. He was never non-employed. His salary was paid until February 2019. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. However, instead of terminating these 35 managerial staff, they were transferred to be accommodated in other units of the management. The workman in question is one such managerial staff, who was transferred to Assam on 10/01/2019. He was never non-employed. His salary was paid until February 2019. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. D. The Enquiry & Findings of the Labour Court: 4. The conciliation did not yield any solution. The claim petition filed under Section 2-A of the Act was taken on file as O.P. No. 18 of 2019. The same was resisted by the management by filing counter statement. The Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. The Workman examined himself as W.W.-1 and Exs. W1 to W-22 were marked. On behalf of management, one R. Vinayakamurthy was examined as M.W.-1 and Exs.M1 to M-9 were marked. 4.1. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties. It rejected the case of the management that the workman was only a supervisory and management staff member and held that he is a workman within the definition under the ID Act. If further held that he was non-employed with effect from November 2018 and the transfer order issued to him after receipt of conciliation notice was only an afterthought. It held that the non-employment was unjustified. Given the fact that the unit was closed, it ordered compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with back wages. E. The Submissions: 5. Heard, the Workman as party-in-person and Mr.Anand Gopalan, the learned counsel for the management and perused the material records of the case. The Workman had filed detailed written submissions, additional written submissions and voluminous materials in support of his contention that the closure can never be accepted as legal. He would submit that when he is ready to report back for work, the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement and back wages. He is entitled to all the arrears of wages. 5.1. Mr. Anand Goplan, would submit that the workman was primarily employed in Supervisory and Managerial capacity and as such the petition is not maintainable. In any event he was in employment as on date of his dispute and his salary was paid upto February, 2019. The management never terminated his service. Therefore, the petition under Section 2-A of the ID Act was not maintainable. He has not specifically question the transfer order. In any event he was in employment as on date of his dispute and his salary was paid upto February, 2019. The management never terminated his service. Therefore, the petition under Section 2-A of the ID Act was not maintainable. He has not specifically question the transfer order. Only because he did not report for work, his salary was not paid from March, 2019. The management has made its offer even after the award of the Labour Court. Even now, it is willing to accommodate the workman at Assam, if he chooses to join. The compensation awarded is on the higher side. F. The Questions: 6. The following questions arise for determination: (i) Whether the question as to the closure of the Unit of the management at Chennai be gone into in these writ petitions? (ii) Whether Mr. Md Thanveerulla Sherif is a workman as per the ID Act? (iii) Whether he was non-employed, if so, the same is justifiable ? (iv) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief and if so, the award of the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the labour court is in order ? G. Question No. (i): 7. This is a petition filed by the workman under Section 2-A of the ID Act with reference to his non-employment. Unless a specific dispute is raised and a reference is made by the appropriate government with reference to the legality of closure, the said question cannot be gone into in this dispute. However, the award made in the present proceedings cannot be meant as if the action of the management with reference to the closure is approved by the Labour Court or this Court. H. Question No. (ii): 8. It is the case of the workman that his duties and responsibilities are neither supervisory nor managerial. The Labour Court first took into consideration the deposition of the workman about his duties. It considered W.W.-1, where he sustained injuries while at work and other documents Exs.W.2 to W.9 relating to his nature of work. If further considered, the cross-examination of M.W.-1 and all the admissions that are made go to show that the workman was a technical manpower and he was performing his work in the machines along with other workmen and his description as Supervisor or Executive does not alter the position. The well-reasoned findings are made in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the award. The well-reasoned findings are made in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the award. Apart from the overwhelming evidence and the categorical pleading and the case of the workman, the pleading of the management in this regard is made in paragraph 11 of the Counter Statement, which is a general statement that the petitioner was a Managerial/Supervisory staff. No further pleading were made with reference to the nature of duties and responsibilities. The entire proof affidavit of M.W.-1 does not contain any averments relating to the same. Thus, apart from the answers in the cross-examination, the very attempt of the management to non-suit the workman on this ground was only half-hearted and though it is for the management to let in evidence and prove its contention, it has not done so. On the contrary, the workman has categorically let in oral and documentary evidence and by cross-examination of M.W.-1 he had established that he is a workman as per the definition under Section 2(S) of the ID Act. I. Question No. (iii) : 9. To answer this point, it is relevant to consider the following from the cross-examination of M.W.-1: 9.1 Thus, it can be seen that after non-employing the workman, a belated attempt was made by the Management to transfer the workman to Assam after receipt of the conciliation notice and as such, no exception can be made to the findings of the Labour Court. The evidence on record and the circumstance adumbrate the fact that operations ceased and the workman did not opt for VRS or resignation and did not enter into any amicable settlement. Therefore, without any procedure being followed or any disciplinary proceedings, he was simply non- employed. His wages were also not paid. Only to defeat his dispute and the petition being filed. It is only after receipt of the conciliation notice, the transfer order was made. Transfer will be an incidence of service in the context of labour jurisprudence, if only the management is specifically empowered to do so in the Certified Standing Orders or as per the terms of appointment. Otherwise it would amount to non-employment and the same cannot be made pending conciliation in violation of Section 33 of the Act. 9.2. No evidence was also let in by the management with regard to their power of transfer. Otherwise it would amount to non-employment and the same cannot be made pending conciliation in violation of Section 33 of the Act. 9.2. No evidence was also let in by the management with regard to their power of transfer. Even their pleading is only on humanitarian grounds to ensure further employment transfer order was passed. Thus, the non-employment of the workman is unjustified. The further circumstance that while on the one hand it is pleaded by the management that on account of the imports from China, it’s unit become unviable and on the other hand, it is pleaded that the same unit was started in Assam and the persons like the petitioner are transferred to Assam. Thus, the attempted case of the management that the workman was never non-employed is factually incorrect and it will be illegal to accept the said case and the circumstances would prove otherwise hence the non-employment is unjustified. J. Question No. (iv) : 10. The workman had, through his written submissions, tried to demonstrate that all along Union Carbide Limited is the major shareholder that took the major revenue and profits from the present management and how, when a disaster struck in Bhopal, the victims were made to run pillar to post and thus attempted to demonstrate the DNA of the management company. Be that as it may, to determine the present question, the Labour Court considered the fact that in any event, the operations at Chennai have ceased therefore, held that in this case, compensation can be granted as the relief in lieu of reinstatement with back wages and all other benefits. The said approach cannot be termed as illegal or perverse. However, the only error committed by the labour court is to award a paltry sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. No reasons are mentioned as to how it arrived at the quantum. 10.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in, O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 468 has held that 3.3 years wages can be an appropriate compensation. The reasoning is that the interest component shall work out at least 50% of the last drawn wages. Further, the Supreme Court in Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Private Limited and another, (1990) 3 SCC 565 stated that appropriate addition to be made towards the loss of future employment. The reasoning is that the interest component shall work out at least 50% of the last drawn wages. Further, the Supreme Court in Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Private Limited and another, (1990) 3 SCC 565 stated that appropriate addition to be made towards the loss of future employment. While keeping the above in mind, the Court has also taken into consideration all the relevant factors while arriving at a justified compensation: (a) The workman in the instant case was drawing a sum of Rs. 41,485/- per month. (b) He had put in 23 years of service before he was non-employed and the dispute is from December, 2018. (c) He was willing to rejoin duty if he is provided employment in Chennai. The management is all along willing to employ him in Assam. (d) No interim relief whatsoever was granted even during the pendency of the writ petition. 39 months wages works out to Rs. 16,17,915/. Adding Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of employment, it comes to Rs. 20,17,915/-. Even the said compensation will not fetch 50% of the last drawn wages, but way below the same. However, overall considering the same as fair and reasonable, the amount is rounded of to Rs. 20,18,000/-. (e) The said sum shall be paid to the workman within a period of 8 weeks, failing which the same shall carry further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today. K. The Result : 11. In the result, the W.P. No.3978 of 2021 shall stand dismissed and W.P. No.16916 of 2020 shall stand partly allowed on the following terms: (i) The Award of the I Additional Labour Court Court, Chennai dated 16/06/2020 made in O.P. No. 18 of 2019 shall stand confirmed in as much as it found that the non-employment of the workman was unjustified and that compensations be awarded in lieu of reinstatement with back wages and other benefits; (ii) The award is set aside in as much as the quantum of compensation is concerned and the compensation payable shall be Rs. 20,18,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs and Eighteen Thousand); (iii) the compensation shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of the website uploaded copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order; (iv) if the amount is not paid within the time frame as said above, then the same shall be paid with further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today; 11.1. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.