M N PANCHAL Vs. GUJARAT FILAMENTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri is appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Jani is appearing for the respondent Company and learned advocate Mr. H.C.Patel is appearing for M/s. Patel Advocates for respondent No. 4.

(2.) Rule. Service of rule has been waived by Mr. Jani appearing for respondent No. 1 Company and Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Patel Advocates for respondent 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

(3.) The facts of the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent company has established factory in tribal area of Panchmahals District under various concessions, incentives and subsidies and has employed 128 workmen and other members of staff. According to the petitioner, the company has earned huge profit out of this factory and in turn has diverted the same to the other industries lime cement in Rajasthan after establishing cement division. According to the petitioners, the company is doing well in its business of yarn division which is grown like anything in last five years where in a new market for exports of its products found in Gulf Countries. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 to 3 has intentionally and with an ulterior motive not paid the bill of electricity consumption charges to the Gujarat Electricity Board in June, 1999 and the Gujarat Electricity Board has, therefore, disconnected the power supply of the respondent company. The respondent company has then published the notice on 24.6.1999 declaring the lay off for indefinite period due to disconnection of the power supply by the Gujarat Electricity Board. Respondent NO.1 to 3 are employing more than 100 workers and the present strength of the workmen is 128 and hence Chapter V-B of the ID Act will apply to them and under section 25-M of the ID Act, previous permission of the specified authority is required to be obtained for lay off. According to the petitioners, not only that but Model Standing Orders are also applicable to them. According to the petitioners, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not only imposed the lay off which is otherwise prohibited under section 25M of the ID Act but have also not paid any wages or compensation for the said lay off. Therefore, complaint was filed by the petitioners before the Government Labour Officer on 30.6.1999 and he has sent a proposal for prosecution but till this date, no complaint has been filed against the respondent company for such illegal and ab initio void lay off and 125 workmen are facing starvation. That the petitioners and other employees re reporting for duty everyday and also marking their presence but are not paid any wages or compensation till this date. The petitioners have submitted that sub section 8 of section 25 M provides that where no application for permission under sub section(1) is made or where no application for permission under sub section (3) has been made within the period specified therein, or where the permission for the lay off or continuance of lay off has been refused, such lay off shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the workmen have been laid off and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if they had not been laid off. That the respondent company has not paid statutory bonus for the year 1998-99 and bonus for the year 1999-2000 is going to become payable after 31st March, 2000. That the petitioner no.5 union and respondent no.1 company have signed a settlement during the conciliation proceeding for the period commencing from September, 1997 upto 31st August, 2000 under which they are legally obliged to pay Rs.1400.00 per year in the month of January being a cash allowance for uniform and leave travel concession but the said amount is not paid in January, 1999 as well as in January, 2000 and the same has also remained unpaid. That the action of the respondent is, in fact, illegal lock out and illegal closure also as they have not published any notice or made any declaration after notice annexure "A". The petitioners have submitted that because of the electricity power disconnection by the Gujarat Electricity Board, the workers are required to come and each of the workmen is required to remain present and mark presence every day.