LexM/S. HONDARAM RAMCHANDRA versus YESHWANT MAHADEV KADAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. HONDARAM RAMCHANDRA A v. YESHW ANT MAHADEV KADAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. DECEMBER 12, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 25FFF-Closure of undertaking-High Court directing reinstatement of workmen instead · of directing payment of compensation in terms of s. 25FFF- C Correctness of-Held, not correct-Workmen entitled to compensation only in terms of s.25FFF and not relief of reinstatement with back wages . . . 4 The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal D is whether in the aftermath of the closure of the sales office of Appellant, the High Court erred in directing re-instatement of the respondents- workmen instead of directing payment of compensation to them in tenns of s. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1. The High Court evidently committed an error in not taking into consideration the factum of closure of the business from the premises of the appellant, for the purpose of grant of relief. If the undertaking of the appellant had been closed down, the workmen were F entitled to compensation only in tenns ofSection 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not the relief of reinstatement with back wages. The question of passing an award directing reinstatement with full back wages, in the aforementioned fact situation, did not and could not arise. (Paras 12and13) [476-B-C] G 2. Two questions arise for consideration; firstly, whether the closure was affected in the year 1983 or 1991 and secondly, whether the amount of compensation should be computed as if the establishment 471 H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A of the appellant was closed in 1983or1991, as the case may be, or are the workmen entitled to some other reliefs. Interest of justice would be subserved if the Labour Court, where the application of the respondents under Section 33(C-2) of the Act is pending, be directed to determine the aforementioned questions as the said Court can determine the said B questions more effectively. [Paras 14 and16] [476-F; 477-A-BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5834- 5835 of2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.1.2000 of the High C Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 1340 of 1999 in Writ Petition No. 1693 of 1997 D E WITH C.A. Nos. 5840-5841 of 2007. Shekhar Naphade, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah and Rahul Joshi for the Appellant. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. A limited notice was issued by this Court as to whether the High F Court was right in directing reinstatement of the respondents-workmen instead of directing payment of compensation in terms of Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7. 4. Appellant had a sales office at Mulji Jetha Cloth Market, Mumbai. G Respondents-workmen were employed therein. The said shop was closed. The factum of the closure of the shop is not in dispute. What is disputed is as to whether it was done in the year 1983 or 1991. Upon closure of the said shop, the respondents were transferred to work in a factory at Goregaon which did not belong to the respondents. An application for H payment of wages was filed against the appellant before the Prescribed MIS. HONDARAM RAMCHANDRA v. YESHWANT 473 MAHADEV KADAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [SINHA, J.] t Authority. The said application was dismissed, inter alia, on the premise A that the respondents had refused to join their duties at the transferred place. A domestic enquiry was purported to have been held in April, 1984 on the premise that the respondents had neither reported for duties at Goregaon nor at Mumbai. The services of the respondents were terminated in December, 1985. In January, 1986, the premises in which B ' the sales office was being run was admittedly handed over to another \._ -4 Company. 5. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondents demanding their reinstatement with full back wages as well as continuity in services. c A reference was made by the appropriate Government. 6. A preliminary issue was raised as to whether in the said reference, the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondents was fair and proper. The said preliminary issue was decided in favour of the employer and against the workmen by an order dated 5.12.1996. The p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.