2018 (2) TMI 2055 - HC - Indian Laws

Reinstatement of workmen in service, without backwages - primary contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there was change in management - Section 33(C)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - HELD THAT - None of these contentions are having any merit. As per Secition 18(3)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court award would be binding on the successor as well as assigns. Therefore, the new management cannot be heard to say that they were not bound by the awards passed in favour of the respondents. Likewise, the MoU entered into between the management and the present management cannot have any effect on the rights of the workmen. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Labour Court under Section 33(C)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding reinstatement of dismissed workmen.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged the orders of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of workmen without backwages. The workmen were dismissed from service and had filed petitions before the Labour Court, which directed their reinstatement. However, the awards were not obeyed, leading to further claim petitions by the workmen. The primary contention was a change in management and a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the erstwhile management. The petitioner argued that the claims should be answered by the previous management and that the Labour Court erred in computing wages due to the unit not operating since 2011.

The court dismissed these contentions, citing Section 18(3)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which binds the successor and assigns to Labour Court awards. The new management could not evade responsibility by claiming they were not bound by previous awards. The MoU between managements did not affect the rights of the workmen. The court emphasized that the new management should have acknowledged the previous awards and taken appropriate action. By failing to do so, they could not now contest the binding nature of the Labour Court's decision, leading to the rightful allowance of the claim proceedings for the workmen.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the writ petitions and dismissed them without costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed. The judgment upheld the binding nature of Labour Court awards on successors and assigns, emphasizing the importance of compliance and accountability for new managements taking over establishments with pending disputes.