NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER
LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-23
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 09,2012

Mational Textile Corporation Limited Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This order will dispose of dispose of CWP Nos. 8422, 8506, 8509, 8519, 8521, 8552, and 8574 of 2011, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents herein were working on different posts with the petitioner Corporation. They had sought voluntarily retirement as per the scheme framed by the petitioner. After they had already retired, they filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), before the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short, 'the Labour Court') seeking payment of certain emoluments which, according to them, were due for the period they were in service. The posts on which the respondents were working, the date on which they sought voluntarily retirement, the date on which the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was filed, and the amount paid on voluntarily retirement in lump sum, are given below:-
(2.) The respondents who were serving on the posts, as mentioned above, sought voluntary retirement and were paid the lump sum as per the scheme framed. More than three to five years thereafter, they filed application under Section 33C(2) of the Act claiming that on account of merger of 50% Dearness Allowance with the basic pay with effect from 1.4.2004, they were entitled to increased emoluments upto their date of retirement. The claim was accepted by the learned Labour Court vide common impugned award dated 4.2.2011, which has been impugned by the petitioner Corporation before this court in the present bunch of writ petitions.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly the respondents herein cannot be termed to be the workmen. They were working on senior positions in managerial capacity. Accordingly, they were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Secondly, he submitted that after the respondents had sought voluntarily retirement and the lump sum amount as per retirement scheme had been paid to them, the relationship of master and servant came to an end. Thereafter, they could not seek any benefit which may be due to them during their period of service.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.