Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.2 While deciding the Reference cases, the Labour Court has given following findings.

a) It is observed by the Labour Court that, the decisions, which are cited at the bar on behalf of workmen, are pertaining HC-NIC Page 3 of 64 Created On Sat Jan 30 02:00:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/5491/2014 CAV ORDER to the termination and dismissal, whereas in the present Reference cases, the workmen have been voluntarily retired/ relieved from the service on the basis of VRS/ VSS. The only defence of them is to the effect that the resignations were taken under threats and relieved the workmen, to which a complaint has been lodged against the said threatening.

It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid findings of the Labour Court is pertaining to the merits of the Reference cases itself and thereby the Labour Court has decided all the Reference cases on merits which is nothing but the premature findings.

4.3 The following issues are emerged in the Reference cases for determination of the Labour Court, including the issue of statutory limitation;

a) Whether the action of the company to accept the VSS application of the workmen, pending the application for withdrawal of VSS application, is legal or not ?

4.12 The petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the fact that, the respondent company had chosen not to challenge the order of Reference passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner for a period of more than three years and allow the Reference cases to be proceeded by the Labour Court. In the said Reference cases, the petitioners have already filed the statement of claim. The respondent Company has also filed Exh.6 application, praying for dismissal of the Reference cases on the ground of statutory limitation, which is challenged in this petition. The respondent company, after the period of about three years, pending the present petition, as a counter blast, chosen to file a petition being Special Civil Application No.9467 of 2014 challenging the order of Reference passed by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner before three years. This Court has dismissed the said petition of the respondent company vide order dated 15.07.2014. Aggrieved by which the respondent company has preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No.877 of 2014 before the Division Bench and the HC-NIC Page 10 of 64 Created On Sat Jan 30 02:00:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/5491/2014 CAV ORDER same was also dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014. Thus, the order of Reference passed under Section 10 becomes final between the parties. In these circumstances, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, the Labour Court could not have dismissed the Reference cases on the ground of limitation, especially when the amended provision of Section 2A (2) is not applicable to the case of present petitioners, inasmuch as the present petitioners have got Reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Therefore the impugned order and judgment is required to be set aside in the interest of justice and to direct the Labour Court to decide all Reference cases on merits.

12. In the case of Ratan Lal Adukia vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 3 SCC 537

13. In the case of Mohd. Arif vs. Cardio Products Corporation reported in 2015-II - LLJ 491 (Del)

14. In the case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2015) 10 SCC 333.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, though number of submissions are canvassed by both the sides before this Court, what needs to be adjudicated first is, as to whether, in the facts of this case, the Labour Court was justified in holding that the References made by the Appropriate Government (vide order dated 12.04.2012) were not maintainable, being barred by limitation. In the event the challenge made by the workmen against the impugned order is accepted by this Court and consequently the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, it would also be necessary to decide, the point raised by the company, as to whether the petitioners - workmen should be asked to refund the amount received by them pursuant to the voluntary retirement, which they are questioning now as illegal termination.