AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction from this Hon'ble Court for quashing the award dated 30th July, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in ID Reference Case No. 1 of 1996. The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to prohibit the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the impugned award. W.P.(L) No. 480 of 2003 In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the relevant part of the award dated 30.7.2002 passed in Reference Case No. 1/96 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar by which it has been held interalia that petitioner is not workman and as such he is not entitled to get salary and all benefits payable to him since the date of order of voluntary retirement.
(2.) THE issue involved in both the writ petitions are identical so both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The facts, in brief, are set out as under: In the year 1979 the Jasidih factory of the petitioner company which earlier belonged to Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'TOMCO') started production under the TOMCO Manager later in the year 199091 the business of TOMCO was on the decline and it suffered a loss of over Rs. 16 crores and at the same time it amalgamated with Hindustan Lever Ltd. who is the petitioner herein. The issue of amalgamation was also subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Bombay and the matter was finally set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the objection raised against amalgamation vide its order dated 28.12.1994. The TOMCO employees union challenged the scheme of amalgamation. The appeal preferred by the TOMCO employees union challenging the scheme of amalgamation was dismissed while upholding the scheme of amalgamation and the same is reported in 1994CriLJ142 . The petitioner thereafter filed application on 29.12.1994 before the Registrar of company under Section 391(2) read with Section 394(1) of the Companies Act to make the amalgamation effective from that date. Likewise on 21.3.1995 an application was filed before the income tax authority where extension of voluntary retirement scheme was sought which was approved by the Income Tax Department on 26.7.1994 for the period from April, 1995 to March, 1996. Pursuant to the V.R.S. scheme being floated 31 employees including 29 workmen opted for V.R.S. under the said scheme and submitted their resignation and between April, 1995 to January, 1996 the concerned 31 employees named in the order of reference received full and final settlement of their dues and claims including the amount payable under the said V.R.S. scheme, gratuity and provident fund. A bipartite settlement under Section 2 (P) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into and as per the requirement under Rule 61 (4) of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules, 1961 the copies were sent to the different authorities. A detail chart with the copies of letter of expenses and settlement are also annexed with the writ petition. A dispute was raised thereafter and the appropriate Government vide its order dated 24.5.1996 made the following reference before the Labour Court for adjudication of the following issues:" Whether the termination of service of 31 workmen named in the Annexure -A of M/s Hindustan Lever Limited, Jasidih under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the Management is proper? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled to?'
(3.) THE petitioner company initially challenged the maintainability of reference in a writ petition C.W.J. C. No. 10814 of 1996 before the High Court on 10.10.1996. However, during the pendency the number of employees in Jasidih Unit came down to zero and it was not possible to pay idle wages and almost all the employees were either transferred and or separated under a voluntary separation, package made available since April, 1996. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 20.5.1998 directed the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability after hearing the parties. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 4.8.1997 inter alia held that it was not possible to give a finding regarding employer -employee relationship and the same was without any evidence on record which led to filing of fresh writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 9327 of 1997 by the petitioner company on 10.10.1997 challenging the aforesaid order dated 4.8.1997. The same was disposed of vide order dated 20.5.1998 by the Hon'ble High Court with a direction to decide the matter preferably within three months with liberty to challenge the same before appropriate forum. The petitioner company preferred an appeal and the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to uphold the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the appeal vide its order dated 9.9.1998. The petitioner company finally and formally declared the unit as closed with effect from 01.06.1999 as per the provisions of Section 25(FFF) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it also clarified that there was no scope of application of Section 25(O) or Section 25(FF) (A) under the said Act. The learned Labour Court gave its impugned final award on 30.7.2002 in favour of the respondent employees holding that the separation under V.R.S. scheme was not proper and the ex -employees except Anil Kumar and K.N. Mondal were entitled to get salary and all benefits payable to them since the date of their respective retirement till the factory in question was closed in accordance with the letter. It also held that the workmen will be further entitled to the compensation in accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The petitioner being constrained has challenged the aforesaid impugned award in the present writ petition.;