R.D. SINGH Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF RELIANCE ENGINEERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions, though listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel for parties, are finally heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) PETITIONERS , when employed by the first respondent/employer, it is said, were refused employment w.e.f. 24.11.2008 and therefore, were compelled to raise industrial disputes by filing petitions under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as I.D. Nos. 1/2009 c/w 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 16, 18 to 20, 22 to 26, 28 to 30, 32 to 37, 39 to 44 and 50/2009 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, arraigning the first respondent as second party in which the parties were represented by learned Counsel. In the light of the pleadings, the III Additional Labour Court framed as many as five issues and after a trial returned a finding in the affirmative over the first issue relating to proof of refusal of employment w.e.f. 24.11.2008; in the negative over issues 2, 3 and 4 viz., that the management failed to prove that the petitioners had resorted to illegal strike; that Canara Bank had taken possession of the entire factory and therefore was unable to provide employment and that the employer had failed to prove that petitioners were not entitled to the relief of reinstatement, by the award dated 16.01.2013, Annexure -D, nevertheless held that the first respondent/establishment was closed, hence petitioners were entitled to statutory closure compensation payable within three months from the date of award and if not, to carry interest at 10% per annum on the said sum. These petitions by the employees are for the reliefs of consequential benefits, bonus, gratuity and retrenchment compensation with interest at 12% per annum from 24.11.2008 as aired by their learned Counsel, Sri V.S. Naik.

(3.) ALTHOUGH , Sri V.S. Naik, learned Counsel for petitioners vehemently submits that the III Additional Labour Court having recorded a finding in the negative over issue No. 2 on the allegation of employer that the petitioners had resorted to illegal strike and therefore presumably are entitled to unpaid wages during the strike period from 27.04.2008 onwards upto to 24.11.2008, I am not impressed by that submission, since there is neither pleading over the quantum of wages remaining unpaid during the said period or an issue, muchless, an adjudication. If truly the petitioners are not paid their wages for the said period, it is open for the petitioners to file an application under Section 33(C -2) for appropriate reliefs.