1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1825 of 2006(M/S) Jagir Singh and others. ………… Petitioners Versus M/S Durrung Steels Ltd.& another ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioners. List of hearing cases has been revised. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 is not present. From the perusal of the order-sheet, the court finds that inspite of a stop order and further direction for payment of cost, counter affidavit has not been filed by the answering respondents. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioners are workmen, working in the respondents/factory, which was based at Roorkee and after serving for more than 12 years, their services were terminated on 8th January, 1991. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which was eventually referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Labour Court gave an award dated 26.3.1996, holding that the retrenchment of the services of the petitioners was wholly illegal and was in violation of the provision of 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, accordingly, directed the reinstatement of the workers with 50% back wages. The respondents being aggrieved by the said award filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was transferred to this court upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 2nd September, 2003, but 2 subsequently, upon an application filed by the respondents, the writ petition was restored and the matter was heard on merit. This court by a judgment dated 9th August, 2005 dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award. In the mean while, the petitioner had moved an application dated 10.12.2003 under Section 6-H(1) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the wages for the period of 8th January, 1991 to 31st November, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 62,14,275. The deputy Labour Commissioner by an order dated 23.12.2004 issued a recovery certificate for Rs. 62,14,275/-. Subsequently, another application was moved by the petitioners for the computation of the wages for the period 1.12.2003 to 8.11.2005 for a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs, in which a recovery certificate was issued but subsequently, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, by an order dated 10th March, 2006 recalled the recovery certificate and directed that the matter would be heard afresh after hearing all the parties. In this order, the authority opined that there was a possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the company filed their objection contending that the petitioners’ unit at Roorkee had closed down in 1996 and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any wages in terms of the award. The Assistant Labour Commissioner after considering the matter, passed the impugned order dated 28th September, 2006 holding that since the unit had closed down w.e.f. 5th January, 1997, the petitioners are only entitled for wages from the date of their termination till the date of closure i.e. from 8th January, 1991 till 5th January, 1997 and directed the petitioners to file a fresh application for the computation of their wages for this period. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this court is of the opinion that the order of the 3 Assistant Labour Commissioner cannot be sustained. The court has perused the objection filed by the respondents (annexure- 10 to the writ petition) and finds that only a vague allegation had been made that the unit of the respondents/company has closed down. There is nothing to indicate that the closure of the unit was in accordance with the provision of 6-w of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. No order granting permission of closure by the State Government has been annexed to the objection. The court further finds that the company has not been wound up under the Companies Act and is still in existence. Consequently, the finding of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the respondents/factory has closed down and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for wages beyond 5th January, 1997 is patently incorrect and based on surmises and conjectures. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to decide the application of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with the provision of 6-H (1)of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 7.4.2010 Nishant