Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Jaipur Syntex Ltd vs Kapil Dev S/O Mukharam … on 11 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:6619]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13518/2025
Jaipur Syntex Ltd., through Shri M.D. Agarwal, President &
Managing Director, B-144 (A), Vijay Path Tilak Nagar, Jaipur
(Since Deceased) and now represented through its Authorized
Signatory Shri Baldev Raj Kataria, S/o. Shri Tek Chand Kataria,
Aged 67 years, R/o 285/5 Vyas Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Smt. Badami Devi W/o Motiram (Pass No. 2064), (Binding
Department) through Shri Jaswant Singh, Jat Wali Dhani,
Manpura, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent/Claimant
2. The Managing Director, M/s. Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd.,
601-602, Sukhsagar Society, N.S. Patkar Marg, Chopati,
Mumbai (Maharashtra)
3. M/s Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., through Shri Rajesh
Nuwal, Director, B-503, Shradha Apartment, Asha Nagar,
Near Thakur Complex, Kandiwali (East), Mumbai- 400101
—-Respondents/Non-Claimants
4. The Factory Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd., National
Highway No. 8, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Proforma Respondents
with
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13606/2025
Jaipur Syntex Ltd., through Shri M.D. Agarwal, President &
Managing Director, B-144 (A), Vijay Path Tilak Nagar, Jaipur
(Since Deceased) and now represented through its Authorized
Signatory Shri Baldev Raj Kataria, S/o. Shri Tek Chand Kataria,
Aged 67 years, R/o 285/5 Vyas Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur (Raj.).
—-Petitioner/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Udai Singh S/o Mahipal Singh (Pass No. 3920), (Binding
Department) through Shri Jaswant Singh, Jat Wali
Dhani, Manpura, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Respondent/Claimant
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (2 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
2. The Managing Director, M/s. Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd.,
601-602, Sukhsagar Society, N.S. Patkar Marg, Chopati,
Mumbai (Maharashtra)
3. M/s Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., through Shri Rajesh
Nuwal, Director, B-503, Shradha Apartment, Asha
Nagar, Near Thakur Complex, Kandiwali (East), Mumbai-
400101
—-Respondents/Non-Claumants
4. The Factory Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd., National
Highway No. 8, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Proforma Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14628/2025
Jaipur Syntex Ltd., through Shri M.D. Agarwal, President &
Managing Director, B-144 (A), Vijay Path Tilak Nagar, Jaipur
(Since Deceased) and now represented through its
Authorized Signatory Shri Baldev Raj Kataria, S/o. Shri Tek
Chand Kataria, Aged 67 years, R/o 285/5 Vyas Marg, Raja
Park, Jaipur (Raj.).
—-Petitioner/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Kapil Dev S/o Mukharam, (Pass No. 1892) (Ring Frame
Department) through Shri Jaswant Singh, Jat Wali
Dhani, Manpura, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Respondent/Claimant
2. The Managing Director, M/s. Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt.
Ltd., 601-602, Sukhsagar Society, N.S. Patkar Marg,
Chopati, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
3. M/s Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., through Shri Rajesh
Nuwal, Director, B-503, Shradha Apartment, Asha
Nagar, Near Thakur Complex, Kandiwali (East),
Mumbai- 400101
—-Respondents/Non-Claimants
4. The Factory Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd., National
Highway No. 8, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Proforma Respondents
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (3 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13602/2025
Jaipur Syntex Ltd., through Shri M.D. Agarwal, President &
Managing Director, B-144 (A), Vijay Path Tilak Nagar, Jaipur
(Since Deceased) and now represented through its Authorized
Signatory Shri Baldev Raj Kataria, S/o. Shri Tek Chand Kataria,
Aged 67 years, R/o 285/5 Vyas Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur (Raj.).
—-Petitioner/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Ramautar Sharma S/o. Hajari Lal Sharma, (Pass No.
2101) (Ring Frame Department) through Shri Jaswant
Singh, Jat Wali Dhani, Manpura, Behror, Distt. Alwar
(Raj.)
—-Respondent/Claimant
2. The Managing Director, M/s. Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd.,
601-602, Sukhsagar Society, N.S. Patkar Marg, Chopati,
Mumbai (Maharashtra)
3. M/s Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., through Shri Rajesh
Nuwal, Director, B-503, Shradha Apartment, Asha
Nagar, Near Thakur Complex, Kandiwali (East), Mumbai-
400101
—-Respondents/Non-Claimants
4. The Factory Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd., National
Highway No. 8, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Proforma Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Pallavi Mehta Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
11/02/2026
1. All the above writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioner-Company assailing common awards dated
22.08.2024/29.08.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Labour
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (4 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
Court’) in different Labour Court References, whereby the learned
Labour Court held that the termination of respondents workmen
w.e.f. 08.12.1996 was illegal and accordingly directed payment of
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to each workman to be paid jointly
by the petitioner-Company and M/s Siddhi Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd.
(for short ‘SMPL’). As the facts, cause of action and points of
consideration in all the above writ petitions are same, therefore,
the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by
this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts stated in S. B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 13518/2025 are being taken into consideration
for adjudication of the dispute involved in the above writ petitions.
3. The facts, in brief, are that feeling aggrieved by the
termination of service, the respondent-workman raised industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer and after failure of
conciliation proceedings, the State Government referred the
industrial dispute for adjudication, where the terms of reference
were relating to two issues: firstly, as to who was the employer of
the respondent-workman; and secondly, whether the services of
workman were terminated w.e.f. 08.12.1996 and if so, whether
such termination was legal and if not, then to what relief workman
was entitled to?
4. Respondent-workman claimed that she was employed
in the Doubling Department of Jaipur Syntex Limited at Behror
since 1987 and that the factory was locked on 08.12.1996.
Workman alleged that the so-called retrenchment w.e.f.
08.12.1996 was illegal and prayed for reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (5 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
5. The petitioner-Company contested the claim inter alia
on the grounds that the factory was subjected to an illegal strike
from 14.11.1996 compelling the management to declare a lockout
on 08.12.1996 and subsequently, the Company was declared sick
by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short
‘BIFR’) and proceedings culminated in winding up of the
petitioner-Company. Such order passed by the BIFR was
unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner-Company in Appeal.
However, in the meanwhile, in pursuance of recovery proceedings
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and with approval of secured
creditors, the assets of the Behror unit of the petitioner-Company
were transferred by registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.2007 to
SMPL under a One Time Settlement. As per the terms and
conditions of settlement, all liabilities relating to wages and dues
of workers were to be borne by SMPL. It was further contended
that 98% of the workmen accepted compensation pursuant to
settlement dated 12.05.2007 entered into between SMPL and
three recognised unions, which settlement was upheld by the
Labour Court and this Court in earlier proceedings. According to
the petitioner, after 14.03.2007, it ceased to have any relationship
with the Behror unit or its employees.
6. The learned Labour Court, after recording evidence,
held that the workman’s services stood terminated w.e.f.
08.12.1996 and such termination was illegal. Instead of granting
reinstatement, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded,
fastening liability jointly and severally upon both the petitioner
Company and SMPL.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (6 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
7. While assailing the awards, learned counsel for the
petitioner has raised following multiple contentions:
(i) There was no evidence on record to establish
employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and
respondents-workmen.
(ii) The Labour Court committed serious error of law and
jurisdiction in treating the lockout as termination without
recording a finding as to its legality.
(iii) The long lapse of time from the date of alleged lock-out
and raising the dispute by the workmen and weeding out of
records in the meanwhile has prejudiced the petitioner.
(iv) In view of Sale Deed dated 14.03.2007 and settlement
dated 12.05.2007, any liability, if at all, was of SMPL under
Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to
be referred as ‘the Act of 1947’).
(v) The awards are contrary to law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Feroz Din & Others vs. State of
West Bengal, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 78 and Laxmi Devi Sugar
Mills Limited vs. Pt. Ram Sarup & Others (1956) 2 SCC 455.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material on record.
9. It is settled proposition of law that the scope of
interference with an award passed by the Labour Court is limited.
This Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of facts
recorded by the Labour Court. Unless the findings are perverse,
based on no evidence, or suffer from patent illegality apparent on
the face of the record, interference is unwarranted.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (7 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
10. It is evident from the record that on the question of
employer-employee relationship, the Labour Court has
appreciated the oral testimony of the workmen and the
surrounding circumstances. The petitioner-Company admitted that
the Behror unit was its factory until 14.03.2007. The plea that
records were destroyed over a time, cannot, by itself, absolve the
employer of statutory obligations, particularly when the initial
employment was of the year 1987 and the lockout was declared in
1996. The burden to maintain statutory registers under labour
laws lies upon the employer. An employer cannot be permitted to
defeat a legitimate industrial claim by pleading non-availability of
records after decades of inaction. The finding of existence of
employer-employee relationship recorded by the Labour Court is,
therefore, based on appreciation of evidence and does not call for
interference.
11. The principal contention of the petitioner revolves
around the distinction between “lockout” and “termination”.
Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Feroz Din & Others (supra) and
Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Limited (supra) to contend that
lockout does not amount to discharge or retrenchment. There can
be no quarrel with the proposition that a lockout, per se, does not
sever the relationship of employment. However, the facts of the
present case are distinguishable and reveal that the lockout
declared on 08.12.1996 was never lifted. The factory remained
closed indefinitely and no steps were taken to resume operations
or recall the workmen. The petitioner-Company did not
demonstrate that the workmen were ever called upon to resume
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (8 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
duties or that wages were paid thereafter. The continued closure,
coupled with total cessation of employment and non-payment of
wages for an indefinite period, was rightly construed by the
Labour Court as resulting in termination in substance, whatever be
its nomenclature.
12. It is significant that no adjudication was ever sought by
the petitioner-Company to establish the legality of the lockout.
The plea that the workmen ought to have invoked Sections 10(k)
or 26 of the Act of 1947 does not strengthen the petitioner’s case.
An illegal termination does not become legal merely because a
workman did not immediately initiate proceedings. In the opinion
of this Court, adjudication in the matter of industrial disputes
should be focused on substantive justice and the real nature of the
employer’s action.
13. The argument that the Labour Court did not record a
finding as to legality or illegality of the lockout is also
misconceived. The Labour Court examined the material and
concluded that the cessation of service w.e.f. 08.12.1996 was not
justified. In fact, the Labour Court has held the employer’s action
to be unsustainable. Merely because the word “illegal lockout” was
not expressly used does not vitiate the awards when the
conclusion clearly reflects that the workmen were deprived of
employment without compliance of statutory safeguards.
14. The next limb of submission pertains to transfer of
undertaking under Section 25-FF of the Act of 1947. The petitioner
contends that by virtue of Sale Deed dated 14.03.2007, all
liabilities stood transferred to SMPL. This submission is untenable
for more than one reason. Firstly, the alleged termination occurred
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (9 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
on 08.12.1996, whereas the transfer of undertaking took place in
2007. The liability, if any, for illegal termination crystallised much
prior to the transfer. Secondly, Section 25-FF of the Act of 1947
does not automatically absolve the transferor of the liabilities
arising prior to transfer unless statutory conditions are satisfied. A
private arrangement between the transferor and transferee cannot
defeat accrued statutory rights of workmen. The workmen were
not a party to the Sale Deed. Inter se arrangements between the
companies cannot extinguish claims of the workmen.
15. It is true that settlement dated 12.05.2007 was entered
into between SMPL and three Unions and 98% of workmen
accepted compensation. However, it is equally undisputed that the
Union of which respondents-workmen were members did not
accept the settlement and earlier adjudication held that the said
settlement was not binding upon members of that Union.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from a
settlement that does not bind the present workmen.
16. The contention that SMPL alone is liable to satisfy the
claim of respondents-workmen also does not merit acceptance.
The Labour Court, after considering the entire factual matrix, has
rightly fastened joint liability. This Court finds no perversity in
such direction. Where the original employer’s action gave rise to
the dispute and the undertaking was subsequently transferred, it
is open to the adjudicating authority to apportion or fasten liability
so as to ensure that a workman is not left remediless. The awards
do not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate recourse
against SMPL in accordance with law if so advised.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6619] (10 of 10) [CW-13518/2025]
17. It is also noteworthy that instead of ordering
reinstatement with back wages, the Labour Court, considering the
long lapse of time since 1996 and subsequent developments,
awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Such relief
is consistent with the evolving jurisprudence of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, which recognises compensation as an appropriate
remedy in cases of long delay and closure of establishments. The
quantum awarded cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary in
the facts of the present cases.
18. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate in
nature. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
impugned awards suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity or
patent illegality. The findings are based on appreciation of
evidence and settled principles of industrial law. Hence, this Court
is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for
interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
19. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are hereby
dismissed. Awards dated 22.08.2024 and 29.08.2024 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar are affirmed.
20. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
21. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on
record of each writ petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /9, 10, 13, 158
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:49:18 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:33:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)