RAMAKRISHNA RAMNATH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it and also contends that the finding of that court that there was a closure of the appellant's factory in the circumstances of the case was a perverse one which ought not to be upheld. The third and the last submission put forward was that the Labour Court had gone wrong in its interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as they stood at the time of the reference.

(2.) The amount in stake in this appeal is quite an insignificant one but the appeal has been brought as a test case for a number of other similar disputes.

(3.) The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on the manufacture and sale of bidis at various places in the Vidarbha region of the State of Maharashtra and other places including Nagpur. It employed 4000 men in its factories. On the issue of a notification by the Government of Bombay dated June 11, 1958 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 the appellant felt that the situation created by the notification was such that the working of the factories had become a financial impossibility. On July 1, 1958 it issued a notice in, writing, sending copies thereof to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, the Labour Officer, Nagpur, and the Secretary of the recognised trade union styled "notice of closure". The relevant portion of this reads as follows: As per standing order approved by Labour Commissioner paragraph 11 and also under general power of the employer to close down the business, we beg to inform you that it is our intention to close down our bidi factory and anywhere outside the factory as from 1st July, 1958. We have been forced to take this step by the action of the Bombay Government in issuing a notification dated 11th June, 1958. The minimum rate/rates of wages made payable as from 1st July, 1958 are so excessive and unworkable that it is impossible for any employer to give effect to them. This is so particularly in relation to Clause 6 of the notification. Thus the changes introduced by the notification regarding wages, 'chhat' and other matters are such as to attract the provisions of Clause 11 of the Standing Orders. Further the employers have under the peculiar circumstances created by the aforesaid notification a right to close the business the working of which has become a financial impossibility. We hereby therefore further wish to inform you that the aforesaid closure of the bidi making business of the firm will continue as long as the notification dated 11-6-1958 continues in force.