LexDISTRICT RED CROSS SOCIETY versus BABITA ARORA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_.._
' A
DISTRICT RED CROSS SOCIETY
v.
BAB IT A ARORA AND ORS.
AUGUST 14, 2007
B
[G.P. MA THUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss. 25 F, 25 FFF and 25 G~Termination
·r~
of services of employees-On closure of one of the units of the employer-
c Order of reinstatement by courts below on the ground that other units of the
employer were running-On appeal, held: Order of reinstatement not justified-
If only one unit of the employer is closed which has no functional integrity
with other running units of the employer, it will amount to closure of the unit
and would attract s. 25 FFF-Hence workmen entitled to compensation
u!s. 25 FFF alone.
D
The question for consideration in the present appeals was whether the
respondent-employees were entitled to protection u/ss. 25F and 25G of
~
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ifthe establishment in which they were working,
itself had been closed down though certain other wings or units of the
employer-society had not been closed down.
E
Industrial Tribunal as well as High Court had held that since other units
of the employer-society were running, on closure of one of the units, it cannot
be said that the establishment of the employer had been closed. Therefore the
order for reinstatement of the employees with continuity of service and full
F
back wages was passed. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I. The respondent would be entitled to compensation only in
accordance with Section 25FFF of lndustriai Disputes Act, 1947 and the award
G
for reinstatement in service with back wages passed by the Tribunal which
;
was affirmed by the High Court ca.nnot be sustained and must be set aside.
tpara IOJ 11025-GI
~-
}
./.-
2. If the entire establishment of the employer is not closed down but
only a unit or undertaking is closed down which has no functional integrity
H
1018
_.,.
DISTRICT RED CROSS SOCIETY v. BABITA ARORA [G.P. MA THUR, J.)
1019
).
with other units or undertaking, it will amount to closure and the provisions A
-
of Section 25FFF of the Act will get attracted and the workmen are only
entitled to compensation as provided in Section 25FFF of the Act which has to
be calculated in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. The Tribunal as also
the High Court clearly erred in holding that as other units of the appellant
were functioning, the termination of services of the respondent would amount B
to retrenchment. The other units are functioning as separate entities and the
mere fact that they have not been closed down, cannot lead to the inference
that the termination of services of the respondent was by way of retrenchment
'r
which was illegal on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section
......
25F of the Act. (Para 91 (1025-C, D, E, F)
,/
c
Workmen of the Indian Lea/Tobacco Development Co. Ltd, Guntur v.
The Management of Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd, Guntur, AIR
(1970) SC 860; Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Workmen and
Ors., (1973) Labour and Industrial Cases 461; Workmen of the Straw Board
Manufacturing Company Limited v. Mis Straw Board Manufacturing
Company Limited, (1974) 1LLJ499; JK. Synthetics v. Rajasthan Trade Union D
Kendra and Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 87 and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and
>
Ors., [2005) 2 SCC 638, relied on.
.. ,,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3735-3738 of
2007.
E
From the Final Orders dated 24. l 0.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 1236, 6081, 6347 and 6349 of2002.
Bairam Gupta, A.P.S. Shergill and S. Janani for the Appellant.
· Rajesh Tyagi, Aparana Bhardwaj and Praveen Jain for the Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.P. MATHUR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the G
judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
/
by which four writ petitions filed by the appellant herein were dismissed by
a common order. In the writ petitions challenge was raised to the awards dated
.)-
./
7.9.200 I of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kamal, in Reference Nos.1433
to 1436of1999.
H
'~
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 8 S.C.R.
A
3. We will give the facts of Civil Writ Petition No.1236 of 2002 which
,.{ -
was directed against the award made in Reference No.1433 of 1999. Babita
Arora (respondent herein) filed a claim petition before theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.