Court orders attachment of property of media house

A Delhi court has ordered attachment of property of a media house, which was shut down 15 years back, for failure to comply with its direction to pay wages to the firm’s 52 ex-workmen.

Additional District Judge G K Gaur directed attachment of property of Business India Television International Limited situated near Uday Park in south Delhi.

The court’s order came while deciding a petition filed by 52 former employees of the media house, which shut down in 2000, for not releasing the wages amount despite being ordered to do so way back in 2004.

“I have not been able to get any assistance from the side of the Judgment Debtors (company and its directories) on this score. I presume, therefore, that what has been stated on behalf of the Decree Holders (employees) is correct. Let warrants of attachment of the said immovable property bearing no. 286, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi 110051 be issued against the Judgment Debtors…,” the judge said.

The employees in their separate execution petitions, filed through advocate Vinod Kumar Pandey, had made a strong plea to the court to issue warrant of property attachment against the firm for recovery of the amount.

It was alleged by the workmen that the management had locked out the premises with effect from February 10, 2000 and no employee was allowed to work.

On a complaint to labour authorities, the government had prohibited continuance of lock out with effect from February 14, 2000.

The matter was then referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Karkardooma Court for deciding the issue of wages.

The workmen said that they were not paid wages since February 2000 and alleged that since 1995 the management had adopted unfair labour practice against them.

The management, however, had said that there was no such Business India Group Employees Union and claimed that out of 378 persons, 217 had voluntarily left the services.

It claimed that the employees were not reporting for duty and also denied that it had declared lock out.

The court had in 2004 said that the management has failed to show any order overriding the government’s direction prohibiting the continuation of lock out.

“The order itself makes the continuation of the lock out illegal and unjustified. Consequently, keeping in view the order of the government prohibiting the continuation of lock out with effect from February 14, 2000, I am of the considered opinion that lock out is illegal and unjustified,” tribunal’s presiding officer had earlier said.

The tribunal had said 130 employees were entitled for wages from February 12, 2000 onwards.

Courtesy – Business Standard


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s