J.L. MORISON (INDIA) LTD. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR. DEEPAK MALIK Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR AND PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMICAL AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by M/S J.L. Morison (India) Ltd., (for short 'the company') aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 17 -4 -1998 passed in WP No. 29505/1996.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as under; The Company M/S J.L. Morison (India) Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of Sutures. Due to compelling circumstances, management suspended its manufacturing operations. Labour department initiated conciliation proceedings, Conciliation ended in failure. The Government construed suspension of operations as lockouts, prohibited the same, vide its order dtd 1 -1 -1996. The prohibitory order was challenged in WP No. 1574/1996. In the meantime, the company made an application dtd 19 -2 -1996 to the State Government under Section 25(O) of the ID Act and sought permission to close down its undertaking at Bangalore. The same was rejected by the Government. The said order of rejection was challenged in this Court in WP No. 19042/1996. Thereafter a show cause notice dtd 27 -6 -1996 was issued to the company to show cause as to why recovery certificate should not be issued to the second respondent for recovery of salaries of the employees for the period from 1 -12 -1995 to 31 -5 -1996 was issued. Show cause notice was replied stating that right from 1 -12 -1995 the company suspended manufacturing operations and the said suspension continued even as on 31 -8 -1996 and as such no recovery could be ordered. A personal hearing was sought for. Thereafter without hearing a recovery certificate was issued claiming a sum of Rs. 20,77,276,67ps. Aggrieved by the said certificate appellant filed a writ petition in WP No. 29505/1996. Learned Single Judge after hearing rejected the writ petition on 17 -4 -1998. He also dismissed two other petitions in terms of a common order. In this appeal, appellant - company is before us challenging the order rejecting the case of the petitioner in WP No. 29505/1996.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. We have carefully perused the material on record.