NILKANTH POLYPACK Vs. MAHA GUJARAT LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner employer employed 15 employees and closed their unit with effect from 10.12.1993. They had called its workmen on 9.12.1993 and offered to pay all the legal dues in accordance with law. However, the workmen concerned refused to accept their legal dues and stated that they would first consult their trade union. As the workmen did not accept the amounts, the petitioner sent the amount to concerned workmen by UPC as well as Registered Post A.D. on 14.12.1993. Subsequent to that the workmen, through their union, approached labour Court by Reference (LCA) No.638 of 1994 and agitated their demand for better benefits on the basis that the petitioner's unit was closed as late as in the year 1999. It is recorded in the impugned award that although the employer had in fact closed its operations, sold its machinery and applied for cancellation of its registration under the Factories Act, there was no evidence of actually closing the unit and the business; and there was no clear evidence of the date on which the employer's unit was closed. Under the circumstances, labour Court directed, by the impugned award, to pay to four of the employees wages on the basis of continuous service from 10.12.1993 till the employer's unit was legally closed, as also the terminal benefits accruing to them on the date of legal closure. Two other employees concerned were awarded 50% of the wages till the date of legal closure and six other employees were awarded terminal benefits without wages for the intervening period.

(2.) IT was submitted by learned senior advocate, Mr.A.K.Clerk, appearing for the petitioner that, as the petitioner employed only 15 employees, no permission was required to be obtained for closure under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the effective date of closure of operations of the petitioner's unit was, in fact, accepted to be 10.12.1993. IT was also fairly stated that the petitioner was always prepared to pay terminal benefits to the workmen concerned and, in fact, cheques in the name of individual workman were sent to them on 14.12.1993. Thereafter, whether those cheques were returned or encashed by the workmen concerned is not known and instructions in that regard are not forthcoming from the petitioner. Therefore, learned senior counsel prayed to make appropriate order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.