Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

establishment has been closed w.e.f. 17.12.2008 and all the employees who were affected by the said closure have been paid their full and final dues. On merits, it is stated that the establishment C­1 had come in operation on 14.07.2003; that the establishment was not even existing during the period which allegedly have been maliciously claimed by the workmen as their date of joining; that the establishment is not operating from C­1 as the unit had been shifted to D­12 w.e.f. 16.08.2004; that the dates of appointment and dispense due to unsatisfactory performance, of the petitioners is Appendix C; that it is denied that the management had taken the signatures and thumb impressions of the workmen on blank appointment letter/blank papers/blank vouchers/any other documents; that the petitioners were duly issued the appointment letter, which they willfully accepted after reading the contents of the same; that the management is duly compliant with the Industrial Employment Standing Order, 1946; that neither the answering management nor any sister concern is I.D No. 221/05 Page 8 out of 18 employing 1000 workmen; that each one of them is separate legal entity; that it is denied that the workmen of the establishment are the members of the union; that the management is duly contesting the said case in regard to the date of appointment and has a good case on merit since it has the requisite sanction of the legal and valid documentary evidence; that it is denied that the management had pressurized the workmen to withdraw the said dispute; that the petitioners have not worked for 240 days; that the petitioners were probationers and their service had been judiciously dispensed with on account of their unsatisfactory performance; that the action of the respondent is absolutely legal and no other exercise i.e. seeking permission as alleged or offering notice pay was required before dispensing with the services of the petitioners/probationers who had not even completed 240 days; that it is denied that the management had terminated the services of the workmen illegally; that the action of the management in regard to the petitioners is fully at tandem with the terms and conditions of their appointment letter; that the petitioners were probationers and to dispense with service on account of unsatisfactory performance was a judicious decision taken by the management and as such the action is absolutely legal, justified and I.D No. 221/05 Page 9 out of 18 duly at tandem with the provisions of the appointment letter; that the workman had not completed 240 days with the management; that the management had duly vindicated its stand in the labour department despite highly militant and hostile behaviour of the petitioners; that the claimants are gainfully employed; that the claimants are not entitled to be reinstated as the management has already been closed down w.e..f 17.12.2008 and all the employees affected by the said closure have already been paid their full and final dues. All other allegations are denied. Hence it is prayed that the claim be dismissed.