PEARL AGENCIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the orders dated 4.2.1998, passed by the Appellate Committee and order dated 12.10.2001 by the Second Appellate Committee, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

(2.) Petitioner had taken the plea before the Appellate Committee as well as the second Appellate Committee that it was unable to fulfil its quota on account of labour strike. It is urged that this amounted to force majeure condition and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to relief without having the forfeiture of its Letter of Undertaking (LUT).

(3.) Mr .Maitri, learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his submission submitted that the Second Appellate Committee, has placed reliance on a letter dated 27.3,1998, of the Labour Commissioner. Mr .Maitri submits that the said letter does not "belong to it". By this, he means that the letter does not pertain to the exporter. Learned counsel submits that it Is true that the strike and the labour problem in the petitioner's unit commenced sometime In 1995, It is also contended that the short fall was due to the strike at the relevant time. Mr.Maitri places reliance on a letter dated 1.1.1997, received from the Labour Commissioner with regard to the complaint received regarding removal of 10 employees from the employment. He also places reliance on the correspondence exchanged with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, regarding the complaint received from the said employees. Reference is made to a letter appears at page 23 of the paper book where Petitioner complains of the loss of productivity on account of absence of these employees.