_ ,3; ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT'OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARJ) ’ WA. No. :f'€ ' y/2010 (Arising out of ord€r dated 22-02—2010 passed by the Single BenCh of this High Court in W.P. No. fl128/2005) _ 1 APPELLANT : Rishi Gases (P) Ltd,‘ through its ' * PETITIONER General Mianager, Industrial Estate,§ Tifra, Bilaspur 495 223 (C'.G.)v g VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. K. P. Samuel, S/o. 'Shri‘ Thomas- Pappy, C/o. MGOS Community; Centre, Opp. Ayyappa Temple Bhartiya .Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 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.) WRITAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO THE DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH;B~ILA8PUR 3: HON’BLEI’M QUDDUSI as 6N2BLEcPR’LsHANTKUMARMIsHRA, J WRIT Arman .. 75’ OE 2010 R ) d‘ Vs. Ram Niwas Dixit and others ishi Gases (B ,Lt ’- WRIT'APPEAL-No'.‘ 76 OF 2010 I x WRITAPPIEAL' No. 7701’» 2010 Rlii d V Ramji Singh Chauhan an Others isGase‘s (P) Lt s. WRIT APPEAIrNo. 78 OF 2010 ishi Gases P Lt s. anshyam sahu and othe Gh rs WRIT APPEAL'NO. ‘79 OF 2010 R ; . ‘ and othe h K ishi Gases (P) Ltd Vs WRITAPPEAL N6;1’02}0F 2010 . . ae s. Rishi Gases (P) Ltd., and ‘others‘ WRIT APPEAL No;103’0F’201'0I ' D H J ‘R () d V m S. Moan .'.. "nu u. nun u. nun n nu K P Smul V rS Mohan: Knmar ; WRT I APPEAL N04 o.1 OE 2010 asyam ahu s si ases‘P) L., and othets Rih G( td WRIT APPAL E N105 o. OF 2010 Rp Sh Chhn am mg oua Vs R1sh1 Gases () P Ltd and oer ths i WRIT Aa rmn N106 o.: OF; b20107 a a xi hi G td s Ris ases (P) L., and ther wu. IA G ‘ {APPEALe'To Divismn ‘B‘E‘Ncm Ami, ‘2‘0 Ape‘ pearanc r osh w1 r Vmod Deshmukh counsel for the mpoyer 1sh1 as Agencms 1 e appellant m WA No 75 7 7 78 79 of 2010 and resondent no 1 m WANos 10 10 8 0 ‘ i r ae, counse or the employees le msponden m W A Nos 75 76 77 78 79 of 20 10 and aellants n WA Nos 10 103 1 0 201 a 2 104 05 8b 16 of 0 ppelan—empoyees Ganshyam Sahu and Ramt Sm hauhan lso pmse RAL ORDE , Passed on 06th Auust 2010 .M.uusi> J; I‘Qdd, V Th i hG é g e ese ,wrt appeals ae ben‘ filed aainst th ; Jdgt d d d d b ~common umen an orer ated 22n of Fe 200 pd W N 126 & 1 asse 1n P os 4123 4124 4125 4 _ 4128 of 2005 whereby the learned Smgle Judge ¢ Ghhh S V. Rm Niws Dit Vs. r APPEALs - ' :cn TTSGRH HIH coum 0‘6 ' ‘ M P S Ky th M i el R G 6 s7 p 2 3 13 104 105 r, 106 of201 ' M S P Kl l f t‘ he 1 pp() ‘Altl h p gh a _ C a n ‘ O R . ( g ) While i/allowing‘ the 'Writ petitions set aside ”the. 2 2001 'pd‘ impugned “orders”. dated 2 0 asse separately by the Labour Court an a1rme y th d ffd b e daed 01.082005 1ndustr1al Court by common order t . so far‘as it relates to reinstatemen an bac wae t d k gs of‘employees. The leamed‘sin’gl Jude held ta g ht the employees are entitled tto icomenaon of psti retrenhment? n Rs250 000/ each in lieu of c i t _add1t1on to the amount already receive y e i 1 uderxth‘e‘p’rov1s/10nsf’of Sectiong'65f3) of the A V A : 1960: § t e ' i i Blrief facts ,of the ease are asiund i‘ t ’ (it , That the appellants (emplo'ees) are the ex employees of the Rlshi Gas () Ltd (for shor employer). _ They 'were worlng Drivers] Mechanics 1n the trucks owned by Rishi Gases (P) Ltd. whlc ‘manufacturlng unit at Trfrat iaspur r trucks were used for transporting the gas cylinders manufactured 1n the unit of the employer to the destinauon of its consumers ' and sale depots of other units of the emploer s f d los a sustained by it and the transport task wa . handed to different transport contracors on contract bas1s The/employees engaged 1n te transport department of the employer wer adJusted With different contractors d l h t f t Te i hs a y The employer has close ransor department on account o allege s s ‘ t . h, e However, ,' later‘ on, by order dated O3 O5 1997 employer retrenched the employees an aso ' ordered fo payment ‘Of retrenchmen ’ compensation s‘ per 1th{e’ prov1s1ons‘ o d b thm, p ct, dr' -‘ P t ' k ’as h Bl is h it r d tpt Industrial Disputes Act, 1947'. The'‘ éinplojlee‘s refused to accept'the co’mpensa’tion,s'oMoffered by the employer. ~The appellant—employees ch?llcnged the order 1 ‘of retrenchment dated 03 05 1997 passed by' the employer before ' th ;' Labour g Cour V Bilaspur. After recelpt‘of'no‘uce, the employer submitted its reply raising \preliminary objection in respect of‘l applicability o prov1s10ns of the Act 1960 and defended the action of retrenchment In the said case, the employees raised the conc111at10n proceedlngs r before the Asmstant Labour Commlssmner, B1laspur, r and? r when the - r proceedmgs became futlle ax fa1lure report was / ‘sent to the M1n1stry of Labour, wh1ch 1n turn by order dated 26 11 1997 r} erred the disputes by framlng the terms of reference to the = VLabour Court Bllaspur under the prov131ons of the Act 1947 In the meanwhile the appellant-employees challenged the retrenchment orders dated 03 05 1997 before the Labour Court Bilaspur, ' , wh1ch were allowed‘ by the, Labour Court by separate orders dated 26 02 2001 quashing the retrenchment orders and d1rected the employer to reinstate the employees 1n serv1ce- w1th full back wages The appeals preferred by 7 ‘, : ‘ the employer against the said orders before the Industrial Court have been dismissed by a‘ - ; common order dated 01 08 2005 The xemployer being aggrieved Vbyj the 'order ‘dated 01 08‘2005 passed by the 1ndustr1al‘ _ Court affirming the orders dated« 26 2 2001 ‘ 2 l Upassed separately by the Labour Court preferred wrlt petltlons The learned Srngle conc111ation f ‘ t i\_. v fir: ff » - i t the imuned order dated 26.02,,20‘ ‘ a, t r ated 01 8 2005 passed by the Industma Lb C passed by the aour our ourt and held that the empl yees are entlted o comensatlon of Rs 2 50 O O/— each m 11e etrenchment 1n add1t1on to the amoun already rece1ved by them under te prov1s of e ) 19 aside pg ‘01‘ nd he bder d l C l t p u of r t h lons 5 Scuon 65(3 of the Act 60 i eging aggrieved by the orde of learned ing apeas agains th; t art of the order gram compensatlon i , ,0,‘ _ 'r mod h dr a 22 2 2010 whereas the appellant-empoyee ve also referred appea o se as1 e sal learned inleudge wereby the orer i assed y the labour coknrt as also the: industra curt directin reinstaement ad ac—Wgs favour ofthe‘ employees have beenfset aside. ac 1 heu of tnt an 1ficat n of te ore dted ls h p l t t de th d,, )der of sgj h ds p b il o g t n bkae in L E, ‘ Y; n ‘ ‘ 4 h labOur Court hel that 1n view of, the depositon of loer Witnesses, the closure of the department was no 1 ncemth law and no notice was given to e nion a as the emloees before closure of e nanspor ep m accorda th U s Well py th t dp dt eartment It was not a closure 1f one umt or epartmen as been closed m e ir h th ndusty. A k dmittedly, the appellant-employees were wormg as B r : Sle e pl t p ntg Rs:;25000/- ,; eh n nrenchme d Te d i the; y t n , be Sai that they ar d e not engaged m any other estabhshment o y . r theaxe’ workless pace of emploment or part heof.” £ etalisment ‘ ‘ ka (sbh , § eh eg s stablisment or undrtakin in Whichany industry i u-sec “Inus‘ial ecu‘on F é defnes o nertakin“ a c f such actlvmes 1s or ave an Industl or industries o y , a en, - ndertaing carrying on any activ1ty bemg a dustry, 1s seerable mm the other umt o nits o suc estalisnEnt or undertaldng u f h bh , such unit sall be deemed to he a separat indusral establishment or undertaki f y f h I an un1t o suc ’ f the predommant acuwt or each of te _ I y h redominant achvmes carrie on 1n suc estabhshment of undertaking or an um thereo 1s an industry and the other actVIty ach of te other actrvmes carrie i z establishment or undertaking or unit thereof ot severable h‘om and is, for the purose ' n p of c . r p e e se arrying on or aiding the canymg on of such- redominant actiVity or actlv1i stablishment or undertaking or, as the ca , he tir ‘ t ene §© he last 13 years therefore 1t can t not ‘T lom ha been hd i bstio he dehnition of the Cse s iene n suecn f 9 h (cc) of section 2 of‘the Industrial Disputes Act, 147 whic rads a nder: . e s u pma i f “Closure” Imeans the ernent closng down o l y re () r udg n Sbtion of dh s 2 i :Whih means ~ th - () estabhshment or uk n m y r h e ti ng.- p d h f y t ’ f or ' e h d on n such r 1s ay be, unit theréof e deeme mdustnal estabhshment r undertakm }‘ Considelin‘g the faéts ahd circumstance o e case at e s f th th th employees ~9have received ‘certain " 'ay‘mehtsr du'i‘in ”the g d J pendency of wnt petltlon before the learne smgle udge , ‘ ‘ Iunder the prowsmns of Sectton 65 (3) of C G I R Act 1960 E : as ‘ menttoned above, 1n our opmmn, 1t; would be appropnate' ' {lf' the appeals are dlsposed of w1th a duectlon to the“ t s t appellant Company to make ex-gratm payment of Rs 2 lakhs Teach towards fun and 1inal settlement of the d1sputes x Company, 1t 1s proVIded that Rs 1 lakh shall be paJd Wlthln ‘ s one month and thereafter, the mmammg Rs 1 lakh be pald, a ‘ .V g rov1dent Fund mclus1ve of the ratlo the employees, shall P ;' so be pald to the appellants (employees) m accordance, 1 1th law by the Commlssmner, for wlnch mtlmatlon shall be , : _ .l W1thm a further two months It 1s also dn'ected that the 'r ‘ t amount of Prov1dent Fund depos1ted w1th the Connmssmner,‘ it sent by the employer Rlshl Gases Pnvate Lnmted to the P F it ,, 7 r Commlssmner However, 1n case the Company faJls to make ayment m accordance Wlth the duecnons contamed above om the date of rece1pt/ producton of a copy of th1s order, r ' n I l ap r ’ 7 the aPpellant-employees shall be enntled to 1ece1ve 12% payment 1s not rece1ved by them m a penod of three months, ,f, , hereafter 1t w1ll be tteated as non-oomphance of the orde t r, ‘ ”m s b d to be an g "fal ‘1 _ *w nd if W111 be o'p‘eli‘fo‘r the appellnt-emPIOyées to me a ontempt petition for deliberate disobedience of the order o his Court. Accordingly, the order Vpasscd‘by the learned ' S abe t s ade clear that we ave not expreed any oinion on he mits of he cse. ei t a ingle Judge‘is modined to the extenl indicated ov. I i m h sJ p t it e afoxesaid directions, all the vvnt appeals, referred t bove, shall stand disposed of. Partis shall bear their o . Wh th ! o a e wn cost(s). ’ ‘1 Sd/- l I I.M.Quddusi Sd- rasant Kumar Judge 7 a J i c f t § i : i ‘ // Ph M1