MS SHAHNAZ AYURVEDICS Vs. PITAMBER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the fourth respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioners, according to the appellant, were its former employees. By the order passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 15.11.2016, according to the appellant, the dispute "whether closure of appellant's unit is justified or not and to what relief the affected workmen are entitled" was referred for adjudication. According to the appellant, on account of fact that the unit was not running profitably, it decided to close down the unit. According to the appellant, it complied with the mandate of Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act and by giving 60 days notice, terminated the services of its workmen after paying compensation to the employees after complying with the mandate of the law. The writ petition was filed purporting to be styled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge granted the appellant eight weeks' time to file reply. The case was ordered to be listed after eight weeks. Further, it was ordered that there shall be a stay of closure notice and termination order dated 29.09.2016 and the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the second respondent. It was further ordered that petitioners and similarly situated persons shall be permitted to join back their duties.

(2.) Heard Mr. Manoj Tewari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of writ petitioners.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that, actually, the writ petition should have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that no case has been made out for the grant of interim order. The appellant has already complied with all the conditions and four out of the nearly 84 workers have approached this Court and he points to the nature of the order passed, as being an order, which is more than what could have been granted at the final stage and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable. He would also submit that the unit has already been closed w.e.f. 01.12.2016 and, in this matter, there has to be adjudication before the forum.