Pac Workers Union (Regd.) vs Secretary (Labour) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 131 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. RULE.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

3. Petitioner claims to be a Union of the employees working with respondent no.3 management. There arose certain disputes between the employees of respondent no.3 and the management in December, 1998. The respondent no.3 closed down its establishment and the matter between the employees and the management was settled by means of a settlement arrived at on 25.1.1999. This settlement, I am informed has been duly registered with the Conciliation Officer. Even otherwise, there is no dispute between the petitioner and the management that such a settlement was duly arrived at between the parties. In terms of the settlement, the workers working with respondent no.3 were paid all their dues including earned wages, leave encashment, notice pay, bonus, compensation, re-employment benefits etc. and the relationship of `master' and `servant' was agreed to be terminated on permanent basis. In terms of the settlement payment was made to all the employees by means of cheques. The management after about eight months re-opened its establishment. The employees represented by the petitioner union wanted re-employment on the ground that the management as per its alleged vindicative policy closed down the establishment and thereupon a settlement was entered into between the management and the employees whereby the respondent management paid retrenchment compensation to the workmen with a rider that the management will re-employ them in case it re-started/re-opened its industrial unit. The case of the petitioner was that as the workers had been retrenched, they were entitled to be re-employed with the management on the establishment having been re-opened in August, 1999. Reliance for this is placed upon Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as "the Act").

4. Section 25H applies in case of retrenchment and not in case of closure. Under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act where any workman is retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any person, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. In the present case, the management had closed its establishment. It was not a case of retrenchment but it was a case of closure. After the closure, the workers had entered into a settlement with the management and had accepted the benefits including compensation. The compensation which was paid to the workers was not the retrenchment compensation but was in relation to the closure of the establishment. By the settlement, the relationship of `master' and `servant' between the parties was agreed to be terminated. In such a situation, Section 25H will not come into play and in case the management proposes to re-open the factory, it was not necessary for the management to first offer employment to the workers who were employed at the time of closure of the establishment and who had settled their claims. Since it was the case of the union that the workers had been retrenched, which was belied by the settlement entered into between the parties, in my opinion, no case was made out for reference of any dispute to the Tribunal or the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. The petition, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.