'€>. ^s^:- ;„ ^•-••'"^•s:-}^^-'"" ^;:;^^""' (^•f^^__ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.A. No. 3^ 72010 lo3 (Arising out of order dated 22-02-2010 passed by the Single Bench of this High Court in W.P. No.4125/2005) APPELLANT RESPONDENT N0. 1 Sri S. Mohan Kumar, S/o. Sri Shridharan, C/o. SriN Devrajan CSEB ST No. 5 Bengalipara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) VER S U S RESPONDENTS PETITIONER 1. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd, through its General Manager, Industrial Estate, Tifra, Bilaspur 495 223 (C.G.) ^<2S^ ^ ettssiss^ 2. The Industrial Court through its Chairman, Industrial Court, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Labour Court through its Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAL TO THE DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 Being aggrieved by the order dated 22-02-2010 (vide Annexure A/l) passed by the Single Bench of this High Court in W.P. No. 4125/2005, whereby the order of learned Industrial Court as well as leamed labour Court has been set aside and compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of retrenchment has been granted to the appellant, the appellant most humbly beg to prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Qourt amongst the others on the following facts SE grounds:- /'"; ^// -tilil^.' i^';^;:,; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HOB'ELE PRASHANT KUMAR ,JJ WRIT APPEAL No. 75 OF 2010 Rishl Gases (P) Ltd Vs. Ram Niwas Dixit aad others WRIT APPEAL No. 760F 2010 Rishi Gases (P) Ltd Vs. K.P. Saniuel and ofhers 5TOITAPPEAL No. 77 OF 2010 Rishi Gases (P) Ud Vs. Rfiimji Singh Chaiihan and others WRIT APPEAL Ho. 78 OF 2010 Rishi Gases (P) Ltd Vs. Ghaashyam Sahu and others WRIT APPEAL No. 79 QF 2010 Rishi Gases (P) Ltd Vs. S. Mohan Kumar aad othere WRIT APPBAL No.102 OF 2010 K. P. Samuel Vs. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd., and others WRIT APPBAL No.103 OFL201Q S. Moban Kuinar Vs. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd., aad others •i^'n- lljlal' •tw^Wtt^-'s-'yW '^^^^eass^^sss^Wssiti&iis^ WRIT APPEAL No.104 OF 2010 Ghanshyam Sahu Vs. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd., aad ofhers WMT APPEAL No.lOS OF 2010 Ramji Singh Chouhaa Vs. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd., and ofhers WRIT APPEaU, No.106 OF 2010 Ram. Niwas Dixit Vs. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd., and ofhers WRJT APP^AI-S U/S 2tl) OP THE^CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTJAPPEA.L, TO DIVI8IQN B^NCHIJ^CT,2006 i«8E Aooearance: Mr. P.S. Koshy wifh Mr. Vinod Deshinukh, counsel for the eiuployer Rishi Gas Agencies i.e., appeUant in WA No.75, 76, 77, 78, 79 of 2010 and respondent no.l m W.A.Nos.102, 103, 104, 105 & 106 of 2010. Mr. S. P. Kale, couiisel for the einployees i.e., respondent no.l ia W.A.Nos.75, 76, 77, 78, 79 of 2010 and appel]ant(s) inWANos. 102, 103, 104, 105 & 106 of 2010. AppeUaat-emLployees Ghanshyain Sahu aad Ramjit Singh Chauhan are also preseat. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 06th August, 2010) I.M. Quddusi, J; 1. These writ appeals have been filed against the coium.on judginent and order dated 22nd of Feb. 2010 passed m W.P.Nos. 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126 & 4128 of 2005 wticrcby thc .lcarncd Singlc Judgc Jij1w1ffa3®3i»51^ \i s'^asss^^^gtsS.^ ^SSssf jo saoisiAOjd sq^ jad SB aopBSU.actuioo ^n:3ltiqoa3j}3j: jo ^aaws.S.vd .u, t;.,i.]p-(o OS^B pnB saa^o^duia aqt paqoiisjiaj jsAoidnia sm Z66T'SO'£0 P3^P JapJO ^q "uo ja^i 'J3A3AOH •sjoi.oej^aoo ^u:3j3jjip q^iA pa^snfpB 3J3A ja^oidTna aq^ jo ^asTit^jBdap ^jodsaB-ti aq^ ai pagegaa saaA'oidma aqj, -siseq IOBJ^HOO. ao BJo^oBj^tioo iJodsiTBJ^ i.aajajjip o^ papiiBq SBA 5[se^ ^jodeaBj^ aq^ pas ^i Aq paaiB^sns sso{ pags^6 J° ^nnoooB uo ^aam^jBdap ^jodsitBJ^ s^i pasop SBq xa^o^dvaa sqj. •jsAoidma aq^ jo s^iun jaq^o jo s^odsp a^vs pttB sjamnsuoo s^i jo aopBapeap 31^ o} jaAo^dida atp jo ^Titn aqt ai pajn^oBjniiBUi sjapui^o seS aq^ SapjodsaBj^ joj pasn 3J3A sqonj^ aqj, -jndsBirg 'BJJTJ, ^B }Tnn Saun^oBjnuBm s^i seq qoiqA -pn (<j) sasBO iqsiy ^Cq psuAo s5[onj^ aq^ UT soiaBqoaj^/sjsAua STB gaiyoA sj:3A ^aqj, • (^ja^'otdma, ^joqs joj) ·p^^ (d) SBQ iqsiy aqi jo saa^foiduia -X3 aq^ 3JB (S33j{0][dlBF3) S^TIBIiaddB sq^ ^Bqj, (T) :J3pIin 8B 3JB 38BO aq^ JO S^OBJ J3Ug •s •096T '^oy 3V jo (e)S9 aopoag jo saoisiAOJd aq^ japun maq^ .i(q paAiaoaj ApBaj^B ^anotiiB aq^ 0^ aopippB TII ^u3T[tqoiiaj}3j jo nail HI qoea -/OOO'OS'Z"8^ jo uoi^Bsaadmoo o^ paRi^ua SJB saaXoidnig aq^ ^eq^ piaq aSpnp S^SHTS paajeaj aqj, -saajfoiduia jo eaSBA-qoBq puv ^uaiiia^B^sitTaj: o^ saiBt3-1 ^I SB •IBJ os SOOS'80'10 pa^Bp -tapJO iiomiaoo j(q unoo iBU^snpui aq^ Aq pauijijjB piie ^jnoy jnoqB'j aq^ Aq A{3^BjBdas passed IOOZ'ZO'9S pa^Bp sjapjo paHSnduii aqi apisB i.as saopT^sd ^TJM aq^ SUIAOIIB 3ITIIM 5 c .ia'; b iT'.dustrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employees refuscd to accept the coiapensation so offered by Ihc ciuployer. (i.; The appellant-einployees challenged fhe order of retrenchment dated 03.05.1997 passed by the eraploycr before the Labour Court Bilaspur. After receipt of notice, the eiaployer subniitted its reply raising preliininary objection in respect of applicability of provisions of the Act, 1960 and defended the action of retrenchiuent. In fhe said case, the einployees raised the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Coinniissioner, Bilaspur, and whcn the conciliation proceedings becaine futile, a failure report was sent to the Ministry of Labour, which in turn by order dated 26.11.1997 referred the dispute by fram.ing the terias of reference to the Labour Court, Bilaspur under the provisions of the Act, 1947. (iii) In the ineanwhile, the appellant-einployees challenged the retrenchiaent orders dated 03.05.1997 before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, which were allowed by the Labour Court by separate orders dated 26.02.2001 quashing the retrenchiaent orders and directed the einployer to reinstate the einployees in service with full back wages. The appeals preferred by the eiuployer against the said orders before the • ludustrial Court, have been disinissed by a coininon order dated 01.08.2005. (iv) The einployer being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the industrial Court affirming the orders dated 26.2.2001 passed separately by the Labour Court, ' preferred writ petitions. The learned Single. m^r -^ ssss Judge while allowing the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2001 passed by the Labour Court and the order dated 01.8.2005 passed by the Industrial Court and held that the einployees are entitled to conipensation of Rs.2,50,000/- eacb in lieu of retrenchinent in addition to the ainount already received by theiu under the provisions of Section 65(3) of the Act, 1960. 3. Being aggrieved by ftie order of learned Single Judge, the employer has filed these appeals against that part of the order granting compensation Rs.2,50,000/- each in lieu of retrenchiuent and accordingly prayed for inodification of the order dated 22.2.2010 whereas the appellant-einployees have also preferred appeal to set aside the said order of learned single judge whereby the orders passed by the labour court as also the industrial court directing reiustateinent and back-wages in favour of the einployees have been set aside. 4. The labour Court held that iu view of the deposition of fhe einployer witaesses, the closure ofthe departuient was not ia accordance with law and no notice was given to the Union as well as fhe exnployees before closure of the transport departinent. It was not a closure if one illlit or departaient has been closed in the industay. 5. Adinittedly, the. appellant-eniployees were working as Mechaaics/Drivers and after closure, they are out ofjob for IS- Yf\ 6. the last 13 years, therefore, it cannot be said that fhey are not eagaged ia aay other establisluaeiit or they are workless. The definition offhe closure has been defined ia sub-section (cc) of section 2 of the Industorial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as iinder: Closure means the permanent closing down of place of employment or part thereof." Sub-section (ka) of section 2 defiiies '"Industrial establishment or undertakmg" which means aa establishment or uudertaking ia which any industry is carned on: Provided fhat where several activities are carried on in aa establishiuent or uudertakuig aud only one or soiae of such activities is or are an iadustiy or uidustries, ffaen,— (a) If any unit of such establishinent or undertajkmg carryiag on aay activity, beiag an industiy, is severable &oia the ofher uiut or iinits of such establishinent or zindertaking, such unit shaU be deeuied to be a separate industnal estabUshinent or luidertakmg. (b) If the predoTninant activity or each of the predoiainant activities carried on ia such establishinent of undertaking or any urdt thereof is aa iadustiy aad the other activity or each of the other activities carried on ia such establishineat or iindertakiag or unit fhereof is not severable from aad is, for the purpose of caiaying on, or aidiag fhe canyiug on of, such predomiaant activity or activities, the entire estabUstunent or imdertaking or, as fhe case k3 7 niay be, unit thereof shaU be deemed to be aa iudustrial establishment or undertakmg. 7. Considering fhe facts aud circum.stauces of the case fbat the einployees have received certaia payinents duriug the pendency of writ petition before the learaed siugle Judge iinder the provisions of Section 65 (3) of C.G.I.R. Act, 1960 as inentioned above, in our opinion, it would be appropriate if the appeals are dispoaed of wifh a direction to fhe appeB^iit Conipaay to inake ex-gratia payment of Rs.2 lakhs each towards fuU and final setflexnent of the disputes between fhe parties. We direct accordiugly. 8. Siace fhe finaricial condition of fhe employer is not good as stated by Mr. P.S. Koshy, tearaed counsel for the AppeBaut Coiupaay, it te provMed that Rs. 1 lakfa sliall be paid within one monfh aad thereafter, the reiaamiug Rs. 1 lakh be paid wifhia a further two months. It is also directed ffaat the 1 ainount of Provident Pluid deposited wifh fhe Coiiunissioner, Provident Pund, iaclusive of the ratio of the employees, sbatl also be paid to fhe appellants (euiployees) in accordaa.ee with law by fhe Commissioner, for which iatimation shaU be sent by fhe employer Rishi Gases Private Limited to tfae P.F. Coimnissioner. However, in case the Compaay fails to luake payxuent in accordance with the directions contaiued above froin. fhe date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the appeUaat-eruployees shaU be entifled to receive 12% iaterest over that amount tiU the paynient is uiale. If the payinent is not received by them. in a period ofthree nionths, thereafter it wiU be treated as noii-compliauce of the order l!tt:li -r^,: r Effifti Rao and it will be open for fhe appellant-eniployees to file a conteinpt petition for deUberate disobedience of the order of fhis Court. Accordiagly, fhc order passed by the leanaed siagle Judge is tuodi&ed to fhe extent iadicated above. It is inade clear that we have not expressed aay opiruon on the inerits of Che case. 09. Wifh fhe aforesaid directions, aU fhe writ appeals, referred to above, shaU stand disposed of. Parties shall bear their own cost(s). ___—- Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge i"i'l"r''n Wci ii:, ]![ iaaw-'