M/s. E. Hill & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3117 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14687 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 3118 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5510 of 2002)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14687 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 3118 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5510 of 2002)
Petitioner: M/s. E. Hill & Co. Ltd.
Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3117 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14687 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 3118 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5510 of 2002)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14687 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 3118 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5510 of 2002)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2002
Head Note:
INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25FF – Subsequent conduct – Transfer orders challenged – Meanwhile, services terminated on account of closure of unit at transfer place – All benefits paid and accepted – Later, transfer held invalid – High Court not setting aside the award. Held that on account of subsequent conduct, the transfer became infructuous. High Court was in error in not setting aside the award. Appeal allowed. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent Gufran Ali who was working in the appellant’s unit at Khamariah was transferred to the Bisunderpur unit of the company. This transfer was challenged and the dispute was referred to the labour court.
3. In 1991 after Gufran Ali had joined at Bisunderpur unit, by letter dated 27th April, 1991 Gufran Ali was informed that his services were terminated as a result of the closure of the said unit and closure compensation and notice pay as contemplated by section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act amounting to Rs. 8,416.45p. was paid to him. Subsequently by another letter dated 30th May, 1991, on account of closure of the said Bisunderpur unit, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 25,679.80p. to Gufran Ali as his provident fund dues, Rs. 6,617.45p. was paid to him on account of gratuity and Rs. 1251.30p. was paid by the appellant towards Gufran Ali’s leave encashment.
4. It is not in dispute that the same paid to Gufran Ali by the said letters of 27th April, 1991 and 30th May, 1991 were accepted by him. In addition to the same, by letter dated 29th November, 1991 Gufran Ali was paid a further sum of Rs. 2,432/- as bonus for the year 1991 and Rs. 96/- as bonus till his last day of working in the year 1991-92. These sums were also accepted.
5. Having accepted the aforesaid amounts, it is quite obvious that the conduct of Gufran Ali showed that even though he had challenged his transfer to Bisunderpur unit of the company he accepted his termination of services by the company on accepting all amounts which were payable to him in accordance with law on account of closure of the unit where he was working. In view of this subsequent development, the earlier challenge of Gufran Ali’s transfer from Khamariah to Bisunderpur, in fact, became infructuous because by his conduct he accepted the transfer when the terminal benefits which were paid to him on the closure of the unit at Bisunderpur were accepted by him. Under these circumstances the High Court fell in error in not setting aside the award of the labour court which had held that Gufran Ali’s transfer from Khamariah to Bisunderpur was not valid. Even if the said transfer was not in accordance with law, but, as already observed hereinabove, by subsequent conduct Gufran Ali accepted his transfer and then terminal benefits which were paid to him pursuant to the closure of the unit of Bisunderpur.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court and the award of the tribunal are set aside. No costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent Gufran Ali who was working in the appellant’s unit at Khamariah was transferred to the Bisunderpur unit of the company. This transfer was challenged and the dispute was referred to the labour court.
3. In 1991 after Gufran Ali had joined at Bisunderpur unit, by letter dated 27th April, 1991 Gufran Ali was informed that his services were terminated as a result of the closure of the said unit and closure compensation and notice pay as contemplated by section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act amounting to Rs. 8,416.45p. was paid to him. Subsequently by another letter dated 30th May, 1991, on account of closure of the said Bisunderpur unit, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 25,679.80p. to Gufran Ali as his provident fund dues, Rs. 6,617.45p. was paid to him on account of gratuity and Rs. 1251.30p. was paid by the appellant towards Gufran Ali’s leave encashment.
4. It is not in dispute that the same paid to Gufran Ali by the said letters of 27th April, 1991 and 30th May, 1991 were accepted by him. In addition to the same, by letter dated 29th November, 1991 Gufran Ali was paid a further sum of Rs. 2,432/- as bonus for the year 1991 and Rs. 96/- as bonus till his last day of working in the year 1991-92. These sums were also accepted.
5. Having accepted the aforesaid amounts, it is quite obvious that the conduct of Gufran Ali showed that even though he had challenged his transfer to Bisunderpur unit of the company he accepted his termination of services by the company on accepting all amounts which were payable to him in accordance with law on account of closure of the unit where he was working. In view of this subsequent development, the earlier challenge of Gufran Ali’s transfer from Khamariah to Bisunderpur, in fact, became infructuous because by his conduct he accepted the transfer when the terminal benefits which were paid to him on the closure of the unit at Bisunderpur were accepted by him. Under these circumstances the High Court fell in error in not setting aside the award of the labour court which had held that Gufran Ali’s transfer from Khamariah to Bisunderpur was not valid. Even if the said transfer was not in accordance with law, but, as already observed hereinabove, by subsequent conduct Gufran Ali accepted his transfer and then terminal benefits which were paid to him pursuant to the closure of the unit of Bisunderpur.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court and the award of the tribunal are set aside. No costs.
