|Chennai||Rs. 24840.00 (-0.36%)|
|Mumbai||Rs. 25460.00 (-0.16%)|
|Delhi||Rs. 25450.00 (2.21%)|
|Kolkata||Rs. 25000.00 (0%)|
|Kerala||Rs. 24700.00 (0%)|
|Bangalore||Rs. 25050.00 (1.42%)|
|Hyderabad||Rs. 24930.00 (1.63%)|
New Delhi, Oct 12 (IANS) Super Bazar, a company running a shopping cooperative by the same name, Friday moved the Delhi High Court against a single judge order staying its notice asking employees not to report for duty.
A division bench of Chief Justice D. Murugesan and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw reserved its judgment after hearing the arguments.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Writers and Publishers Ltd., challenging the order that asked nearly 1,000 employees not to report for duty.
The judge has stayed the Oct 5 decision of the company after a trade union, Super Bazar Karamchari Hiteshi Sangathan, challenged the notice.
C.S. Sundaram, an advocate appearing for Super Bazar, said: "The notice that asked workmen not to report for duty was in conformity with the Supreme Court order which had asked the company to pay arrears to the employees and employ them for three years."
"This society could not be revived and, hence, the notice was justified and if there was any confusion, the union should have gone to the Supreme Court seeking clarification of the order passed on February 26, 2009. The writ petition was not maintainable," he said.
However, the union contended that "the Supreme Court wanted to revive the cooperative society on the petition of workers and it cannot be said that it wanted workmen to lose jobs after three years."
Terming the notice illegal, the union's counsel said: "They wanted to take over the real estate of the society worth over Rs.1,000 crore and did not bother about the ramification of the decision on workmen."
The union had sought quashing of the notice and a direction to protect the life and livelihood of the employees.
The union had moved the Supreme Court several times against the closure of ailing Super Bazar.
The Supreme Court in 2009 had accepted the bid of Writers and Publishers Ltd. for reviving the society.
The union alleged that the company running the society was not interested since it did not take any step for Super Bazar's revival.