Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Indl. Tbl.-cum-L.C. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 14147 of 1996
Petitioner: Cement Corpn. of India Ltd.
Respondent: Presiding Officer, Indl. Tbl.-cum-L.C. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 14147 of 1996
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2001
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Sections 25F, 25FFF, 33-C(2) – Re-appointment – Earlier services terminated by erstwhile company – Said company taken over – Fresh appointment made – Employee moving application under Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act of 1981 – Receipt of compensation under Section 25F and 25FFF admitted – If entitled to be filled in higher grade with increments of service weightage. Held that he was not entitled to any such benefit. Award modified to that extent.
Held:
It is clear that the respondent no. 2 started a fresh career under the appellant on being appointed with effect from 18.12.1981. He may have been given benefit of certain increments with higher start of salary but that circumstance would not confer any right upon him to make any claim for any advantage for period of service rendered in the erstwhile employment from which he was retrenched. Therefore, the Labour Court could not order payment of three additional increments. In that view of the matter the order made by the Labour Court shall stand quashed to that extent only. (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited came to be closed on 18.3.1980 when the services of its employees including respondent no. 2 – Bhim Sain Prabhakar were terminated. However, services of 95 employees were retained. Thereafter, under the Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1981 the undertaking of the Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited stood vested in the Government of India and its management was handed over to M/s. Cement Corporation of India who is the appellant before us.
2. Respondent no. 2 was appointed afresh with effect from 31.12.1981 pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 18.12.1981 offering him fitment in Grade IV in the year 1985-86 and that arrears would be paid only from 1.1.1984. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industri-al Disputes Act 1947 claiming that he is entitled to be fitted in Grade-V with effect from 1.1.1982 with three service weightage increments placing reliance upon the Award made on 18.7.1983 by the Arbitrators in the industrial dispute between the workmen in the Cement Industry represented by the Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation, Bombay and the Employers in the Cement Industry represented by the Cement Manufactures Association.
3. The appellant management contested that respondent no. 2 is not entitled to be fitted in Grade-V or for promotion to any higher post as he had been appointed only as a clerk in terms of the appointment letter dated 18.12.1981 and he cannot claim any upgradation fitment in a higher grade. The Labour Court took note of the Award dated 18.7.1983 and found that respondent no. 2 had been placed in Grade-II with effect from 6.7.1983 and subsequent-ly vide order dated 25.11.1985 he was placed in Grade IV with effect from 1.1.1984. Ultimately, the Labour Court found that the respondent no. 2 is entitled to be fitted in Grade-V with effect from 1.1.1982 when the Award of 1983 was implemented and ordered to the effect that the respondent no. 2 is entitled to be fitted in Grade-V from 1.1.1982 with three service weightage increments in Grade-V and in Grade-VI with effect from 1.1.1986.
4. The matter was carried to the High Court by way of a writ petition and the High Court dismissed the matter in limine. Hence this appeal by Special Leave Petition.
5. From the narration of the facts it is clear that the services of respondent no. 2 stood terminated from the erstwhile Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. on its closure and in fact the respondent no. 2 made an application in terms of Section 17 of the Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1981 wherein he made a claim that compensation as provided under Sections 25(F) and 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of payments for Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. and that such amount was received by him.
6. Thereafter, a fresh agreement appears to have been entered into between appellant management of the workmen to recruit ex-employees of the erstwhile Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. factory on certain terms and conditions in the light of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 started a fresh career under the appellant on being appointed with effect from 18.12.1981. He may have been given benefit of certain increments with higher start of salary but that circum-stance would not confer any right upon him to make any claim for any advantage for period of service rendered in the erstwhile employment from which he was retrenched. Therefore, the Labour Court could not order payment of three additional increments. In that view of the matter the order made by the Labour Court shall stand quashed to that extent only. However, since respondent no. 2 has retired from service now whatever payments may have been made to him need not be recovered. Appeal shall stand allowed accordingly to the extent stated above.
1. The Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited came to be closed on 18.3.1980 when the services of its employees including respondent no. 2 – Bhim Sain Prabhakar were terminated. However, services of 95 employees were retained. Thereafter, under the Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1981 the undertaking of the Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited stood vested in the Government of India and its management was handed over to M/s. Cement Corporation of India who is the appellant before us.
2. Respondent no. 2 was appointed afresh with effect from 31.12.1981 pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 18.12.1981 offering him fitment in Grade IV in the year 1985-86 and that arrears would be paid only from 1.1.1984. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industri-al Disputes Act 1947 claiming that he is entitled to be fitted in Grade-V with effect from 1.1.1982 with three service weightage increments placing reliance upon the Award made on 18.7.1983 by the Arbitrators in the industrial dispute between the workmen in the Cement Industry represented by the Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation, Bombay and the Employers in the Cement Industry represented by the Cement Manufactures Association.
3. The appellant management contested that respondent no. 2 is not entitled to be fitted in Grade-V or for promotion to any higher post as he had been appointed only as a clerk in terms of the appointment letter dated 18.12.1981 and he cannot claim any upgradation fitment in a higher grade. The Labour Court took note of the Award dated 18.7.1983 and found that respondent no. 2 had been placed in Grade-II with effect from 6.7.1983 and subsequent-ly vide order dated 25.11.1985 he was placed in Grade IV with effect from 1.1.1984. Ultimately, the Labour Court found that the respondent no. 2 is entitled to be fitted in Grade-V with effect from 1.1.1982 when the Award of 1983 was implemented and ordered to the effect that the respondent no. 2 is entitled to be fitted in Grade-V from 1.1.1982 with three service weightage increments in Grade-V and in Grade-VI with effect from 1.1.1986.
4. The matter was carried to the High Court by way of a writ petition and the High Court dismissed the matter in limine. Hence this appeal by Special Leave Petition.
5. From the narration of the facts it is clear that the services of respondent no. 2 stood terminated from the erstwhile Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. on its closure and in fact the respondent no. 2 made an application in terms of Section 17 of the Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1981 wherein he made a claim that compensation as provided under Sections 25(F) and 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of payments for Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. and that such amount was received by him.
6. Thereafter, a fresh agreement appears to have been entered into between appellant management of the workmen to recruit ex-employees of the erstwhile Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. factory on certain terms and conditions in the light of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 started a fresh career under the appellant on being appointed with effect from 18.12.1981. He may have been given benefit of certain increments with higher start of salary but that circum-stance would not confer any right upon him to make any claim for any advantage for period of service rendered in the erstwhile employment from which he was retrenched. Therefore, the Labour Court could not order payment of three additional increments. In that view of the matter the order made by the Labour Court shall stand quashed to that extent only. However, since respondent no. 2 has retired from service now whatever payments may have been made to him need not be recovered. Appeal shall stand allowed accordingly to the extent stated above.
