GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should there not be an application of mind by the Government in forming an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended for an order to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal The orders of the Government directing four industrial disputes to be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal are challenged in these four Writ Petitions. M/s. Grasim Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management' for short) moved the Government of Kerala for permission to close down the undertaking which was however turned down. Later the issue as regards the grant of permission to effect closure of the pulp and staple fiber divisions was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. This was the subject-matter of I.D. No. 50/2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode wherein the Management and all the trade unions were parries. The services of about 145 staff members were dispensed with on 12-7-2000 after the undertaking suspended its operations allegedly due to uneconomical reasons. The issue as regards the termination of the services of the said 145 staff members and the relief to which they were entitled to was also referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. This was the subject-matter of I.D. No. 3/2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode wherein also the Management and all the trade unions were parties and both the industrial disputes were pending.

(2.) A tripartite settlement dated 7-7-2001 was entered into between the Management and the various trade unions under the auspices of the State Conciliation Officer during the pendency of the industrial disputes. The same provided for closure compensation 'to all the permanent workmen of the company on its rolls on the date of the settlement including trainees and probationers'. The same benefit was extended to the staff members who were parties to I.D. No. 3/2001 except those who had attained the age of superannuation as on 30-6-2001. The tripartite settlement was produced in I.D. Nos. 50/2000 & 3/2001 and awards were passed therein upholding the request of the Management to effect closure. The workmen as well as the 145 staff members were also held entitled to closure compensation as per the terms of the tripartite settlement in the two separate awards passed.

(3.) The contesting respondents are all admittedly staff members who were either not on the rolls of the company as on the date of tripartite agreement or had attained the age of superannuation as on 30-6-2001. They contended that they had been unjustifiably denied the closure compensation as per the tripartite settlement on the basis of which the industrial awards were passed. The staff members (14 in number) moved the District Labour Officer who attempted a conciliation and later forwarded a failure report to the Government. It is on that basis had the Government issued the impugned orders referring the disputes for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.