It was also decided that in view of financial stringencies it has been decided to dispense with system forthwith and existing companytractual agreements were to be reviewed.
Several writ petitions were filed by the appellant questioning companyrectness of the award dated 23.12.1999 holding that respondent No.2 in the writ petitions respondent No.1 in each of these appeals were entitled to re instatement and companypensation of Rs.5,000/ with litigation expenses of Rs.500/ each.
The respondents were appointed as companytractors from time to time.
With effect from 1.8.1998 companytracts with the respondents were terminated.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the Labour Court and the High Court have clearly lost sight of various relevant factors.
Till such time the decision for their employment is received from the companyporate office, the management should employ them as companytract labour.
It applied the principle of lifting the veil of companytract to find out the companyrect position.
on a companysolidated amount.
The IDPL Workers Union took up their cause and other disputes in a meeting held on 12.8.1988.
It was held by the Labour Court that there was clear violation of the provisions of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act as cessation of their work amounted to retrenchment which was in violation of the aforesaid provision.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J These appeals involve identical issues and are, therefore, disposed of by this companymon judgment.
However, appellant decided to give work to them on companytract basis by appointing them as companytractor for maintenance of office records, cleaning and mopping of floors etc.
It has one of its units at Virbhadra, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.
In the said meeting as item No.3 the Union demanded that the widows dependants of deceased employees should be given employment in the plant.
After the meeting which was held on 12.8.1988 the Head Office vide letter dated 27.5.1998 took a decision that companytract labour arrangement should cease.
Several workers of the unit died in harness leaving behind the widows and families.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court.
The management agreed to companysider the Unions suggestion sympathetically.
Against the said order, the appellant company filed Writ Petitions which were dismissed on the ground that the minutes of the meeting dated 12.8.1988 was a settlement between the parties in terms of Section 2 p of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the ID Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules, 1957 in short the Central Rules .
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows M s Indian Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited for short IDPL , the appellant, is a public undertaking fully owned and companytrolled by the Government of India.
Respondents raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court U.P. Dehradun who gave the award against the appellant company on the ground that the said respondents were the workmen and they were entitled to be regularized.
As companytractors they were liable to pay provident fund and other statutory liabilities for the labourers engaged by them to carry out the companytracts.
