SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. - (1.) The petitioner closed down its establishment permanently on 13.12.2000. The respondent nos. 2 to 16 filed a claim petition on 11.1.2010 under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming closure compensation, leave encashment, salary for two months in lieu of the closure and also the earned wages for the period from 1.12.2000 to 13.12.2000. On 27.1.2010 the respondent no.1, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region Meerut directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,69,679/- with 12% interest in pursuance of the claim filed by the respondents-workmen. However, upon coming to know about the order dated 27.1.2010 the petitioner on 5.2.2010 prayed for the recall of the order dated 27.1.2010 and also prayed that the petitioner be allowed to contest the case on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed its detailed objection to the applications of the respondents no.2 to 16 on 16.2.2010. When the order dated 17.11.2012 accepting the claim of the respondents was passed the instant writ petition was filed.
(2.) The petitioner very categorically submitted that on 13.12.2000, when the establishment of the petitioner was permanently closed, the workmen were not employed with the petitioner and, therefore, they were not entitled for any closure compensation. The petitioner also further submitted that the workmen were not entitled for any leave which could be encashed. Further, the petitioner stated that since the respondents were not employed on 13.12.2000, they were also not entitled for any notice or any salary in lieu of the notice. In the end the petitioner has stated that since the respondents had not worked from 1.12.2000 to 13.12.2000, they were also not entitled to receive wages for that period. The petitioner submitted that since there was no amount yet quantified under Section 6-J to Section 6-R and that no amount was also quantified under any award of any kind, the application under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was definitely not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the order dated 1.11.2012 saying that the respondent no.1 i.e. the Additional Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region Meerut wrongly relied upon the adjudication under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as a calculation of gratuity is very different from the calculation of the amounts which the workmen had prayed for in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the judgment reported in FLR 2002 (95) 347 (Dinesh Pratap Singh v. Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner) if any claim made by the workmen was disputed by the employers then the application of the workmen under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not be entertained by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
(3.) In reply the learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 16, however, submitted that it mattered little as to under what provision the application was filed. He submitted that the mentioning of the provisions as Section 6-H(1) instead of Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was irrelevant as only mathematical calculation had to be done as per the last drawn salary which had been finally adjudicated in the proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act.;