Sunil Ambawani, J. - (1.) -Heard Shri Satish Chaturvedi for M/s. BPL Display Devices Limited, A-41, 42/1, Site-IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad and Shri Y. K. Sinha for the workmen.
(2.) THE Writ Petition No. 43422 of 2006 arises out of an application filed by Kunwar Udai Raj Singh Gautam, the petitioner as Payment of Gratuity Act Case No. 47 of 2002 for payment of gratuity from M/s. Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. for the period prior to the date when lock out was declared in the factory and consequential termination of his services on 30.11.1994. He claimed Rs. 5,35,501 towards gratuity for the period of service of 7 years 8 months on the last drawn wages of Rs. 7692. A written statement was filed by M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. (former name M/s. Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd.) with the objections that applicant was the employee of Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd., which was taken over by M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. in terms of the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) by its order dated 18.4.1996. THE name of the company was changed in the meeting dated 29.9.1997. THE Registrar of Companies, U. P. Kanpur changed the name of the company w.e.f. 23.3.1998. As per the terms of rehabilitation scheme, M/s. BPL display Devices Ltd. is not responsible for dues of the employees of the erstwhile Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. On merit it was stated in para 5 that the workmen was employed only upto 19.9.1994. THEre was lock out in the factory w.e.f. 10.9.1994, which was lifted on 20.6.1996 after a settlement with the Union, which became part of the award dated 24.9.1997 in Adjudication Case No. 171 of 1996 by labour court-I, Ghaziabad. As per the settlement the workers are not entitled to gratuity for the period earlier to the settlement. Shri Pankaj Kumar, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by his order dated 19.9.2005 awarded gratuity of Rs. 31,064 with 6% interest from the date it was due, with the finding that the claimant was workman upto the date of lock out and had worked for 7 years 5 months and 9 days. The liability of payment was fixed on M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd., which had taken over M/s. Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. The appeal filed by M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd., was allowed by the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on 9.5.2006 on the ground that the workman was not an employee of M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. He did not apply under para 4 (6) of the Scheme dated 18.4.1996 for continuing in employment as core group employee and for payment of dues. According to the appellate authority M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. was not liable to pay the dues, as it was not employer of the workman. Aggrieved the workman has filed the writ petition.
(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 43430 of 2006, Shri Kishore Kumar Hazara filed Payment of Gratuity Act Case No. 68 of 2000 before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity of Rs. 23,415 from M/s. Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. on the same fact and circumstances with service period of 7 years 5 months and 9 days, on the last drawn salary of Rs. 5798 on the date of lock out on 10.9.1994 when his services were terminated. Shri Pankaj Kumar, the Controlling Authority awarded the gratuity by his order dated 31.1.2005 with 6% interest from the date is due. The appellate authority allowed the Appeal No. 42 of 2005 filed by M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. on the same reasoning as in the case of Kunwar Udai Raj Singh Gautam. Aggrieved the workman has filed the writ petition. In Writ Petition No. 21710 of 2007, Dileep Kumar Bhola filed similar application for payment of gratuity from M/s. Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. of Rs. 30,389 on completing 7 years of service on last drawn wages of Rs. 7525 on the date when lock out was declared. The Controlling Authority allowed the application on 24.4.2006. The appellate authority has allowed the Appeal No. 92 of 2006 on 8.2.2007 filed by M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. on the same reasoning as in the case of Kunwar Udai Raj Singh Gautam. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the writ petition.;