K.C. Puri, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2729 of 1999, titled Desh Sewak Foundry v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Anr. 3951 of 1999, titled Desh Sewak Foundry v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Anr. 3955 of 1999 Desh Sewak Foundry v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Anr. 3964 of 1999, Desh Sewak Foundry v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Anr. and 3965 of 1999 titled Desh Sewak Foundry v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Anr. as common questions of fact and law are involved. Facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 2729 of 1999.
(2.) IT is pleaded that the petitioner is a partnership firm. Respondent No. 2, Ajit Singh joined as a Turner with the petitioner firm with effect from 2.4.1976. The petitioner firm was covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Respondent No. 2 also became a member of this scheme immediately on joining the petitioner firm. There were two independent units in the petitioner firm. One was Workshop Department and the second was Foundry Unit. Due to certain economic facts and other circumstances which were beyond the control of the management of the petitioner firm and heavy losses suffered by the petitioner firm, the petitioner had to close its Workshop Department. Consequently, closure notice dated 28.9.1984 was issued and it was mentioned therein that it was decided to close the Workshop Department with immediate effect and all the workmen employees in the said Department were informed to collect the payment of their legal dues in accordance with Section 25FFF read with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act). It was also made clear that in case the workmen failed to collect the same, the amount will be remitted to them by Pay Order at their given address. A copy of the said notice was also sent to the Labour Inspector, Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh besides the concerned workmen. As nobody turned up to collect the dues in terms of the notice dated 28.9.1984, the respondent No. 2 sent a cheque of Rs. 3,634.96P as compensation in terms of Section 25FFF of the Act. Respondent No. 2 refused to accept the registered letter and it was received back undelivered. The workers raised an industrial dispute. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. During the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court, even the Foundry Section was finally closed and the premises of the Foundry have already been sold out. The Labour Court passed the award dated 2.3.1998 vide which it was held that the services of workman i.e. Respondent No. 2 were terminated which amounted to retrenchment and because of non compliance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the termination was illegal and consequently respondent No. 2 was reinstated with continuity of service with back wages to the extent of 75%. The petitioner has termed the award of the Labour Court as illegal, against the provisions of the Act and perverse.
(3.) THE petitioner further pleaded that the findings of the Labour Court that there was no closure and it was retrenchment were totally arbitrary and wholly illegal. The Labour Court wrongly concluded that the Workshop Unit and Foundry Unit were interdependent. Actually, both these units were totally independent. The Labour Court has mis -read the report of the Inspector of Factories to conclude that the Workshop Unit of the factory was in operation after its closure. The Labour Court has also gone wrong in awarding 75% back wages to the workman.;