- (1.) Whether it is 'closure' or 'retrenchment' that has led to the second and third respondents being deprived of their employment as Watch and Ward Guards with the petitioner employers, is the moot question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioners are the employers whereas respondent nos.2 & 3 are their quondam workmen. The petitioners have challenged an award of the Labour Court (2), Kanpur, dated 30.08.1999 and published on 20.05.2000, being a common award made in Adjudication Case nos.240 of 1993 and 241 of 1993. Proceedings for enforcement of the said award, including recovery have also been challenged. The aforesaid award has also dealt with another reference at the instance of a certain Ram Murat Ram, another workman, that was registered as Adjudication Case no.239 of 1993. The aforesaid Adjudication Case no.239 of 1993 was treated to be the leading case by the Labour Court. However, at the later stages of hearing, the workman at whose instance reference was made leading to the Adjudication Case last mentioned did not appear to support it, or lead evidence to prove his case, or file documents. Resultantly, the award in Adjudication Case no.239 of 1993 went against the concerned workman; the present petition, accordingly, has no concern with the aforesaid Adjudication Case. In order to further place proceedings before the Labour Court in perspective it requires mention here that Adjudication Case no.240 of 1993 relates to respondent no.2, Prem Narain Singh whereas Adjudication Case no.241 of 1993 relates to respondent no.3, Rajendra Bahadur Singh. This petition was admitted to hearing on 14.02.2002 and in course of time, a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3, dated 20.04.2012 has been jointly filed, to which a rejoinder affidavit dated 13.05.2013 has also been filed. There is also a supplementary affidavit, dated 14.01.2002 filed early, in aid of the writ petition. This makes for the entire pleadings of the parties before this Court. This matter was heard in a single hearing on 27.03.2019, and judgment was reserved.
(3.) Heard Sri V.K. Upadhya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6.;