Hindustan Apparel Industries vs G.R. Sapre, Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another
- SCC1984 Supp (1) SCC 353
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employer has closed its original business and commenced a substantially similar business, and a Labour Court has awarded reinstatement to workers but those workers have been gainfully employed elsewhere during the pendency of appeal, the court may order the employer to offer fresh employment to such workers in the new business at the same wages scale as other newly recruited workers doing similar work, rather than reinstate them to their original positions; and if the workers decline such offer, the employer may discharge its liability by payment of a lump sum in full and final settlement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. By a notice dated 13th August, 1974, the appellant terminated the services of 14 workmen in pursuance of order 23 of the Standing Orders. The dispute was taken to the Labour Court which gave an award on 19th February, 1979, directing the re-instatement of three workers who figure among the respondents in these appeals. The remaining 11 workers accepted the notice of termination and the compensation which was paid to them by the appellant.
2. Under an interim order passed by this Court on 19th March, 1982, about Rs. 24,000/- have been paid to each one of the three workers so far. The interim order expressly recognised the right of these three workers to continue to work in any other establishment during the pendency of these appeals. We may mention that while passing the order of re-instatment, the Labour Court had itself recorded the finding that the three workers were gainfully engaged in some other employment.
3. We are of the opinion that substantial justice has been done to the three workers by reason of the interim order which was passed by this Court in their favour. It appears that in May 1979, the appellant had closed its business and has started another business on somewhat similar lines. The fairest order to pass in these circumstances would be to direct that the appellant shall take the three workers in its employment as fresh employees in the business in which the same or similar type of work is being done, which the three workers used to do. They shall, of course, be taken in the same scale of wages which are paid to similar other freshly recruited workers.
4. The written offers of fresh employment will be sent by the appellant to the learned Counsel of the workers who has agreed to transmit the offers to the workers. The offer shall be communicated within two weeks from today.
5. The workers will exercise their option whether or not to accept the new employment, within two weeks after the receipt of the respective offers. In the event that the workers do not choose to accept the offer, the appellant shall pay to such of them as do not accept the offer a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of the present dispute.
These appeals will stand disposed of in terms of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free