RISHIROOP RUBBER (INTERNATIONAL) LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this appeal, the appellant-original petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th September, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15652 of 2005 whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order of the State Government referring the dispute to the competent Tribunal. The facts of the present case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and export of chlorinated rubber using Carbon Tetra Chloride as main component. It is the case of the appellant that as CTC was found to be one of the main reason for depletion of ozone layer, the appellant company started facing severe trade adversities in the developed countries where the product of the appellant company was being exported. Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the production has gradually come down and therefore it shut down its manufacturing operations in its factory situate at Plot No. 5807.GIDC Industrial Estate, Ankleshwar w.e.f. 6th November 2004 after following procedure under the law. Respondent No. 5-Union has filed proceedings and has also approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 14789/2004 agitating the questions of breach of provisions of Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Union also complained of breach of provisions of Section 9A of the said Act. When this petition was filed conciliation proceedings were already pending before the Conciliation Officer with respect to the disputes which ultimately culminated into impugned reference being made by the State Government. Special Civil Application No. 14789/2004 came to be disposed of by Learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 05-11-2004 directing the authorities to do the needful in the matter in accordance with law. It appears that by a communication dated 24-11-2004, Labour Officer of Ankleshwar indicated to the respondent No. 5-Union that there is no material to establish that the petitioner-Company has engaged more than 100 workers. Deputy Labour Commissioner also noted in his communication dated 04-02-2005 that since the petitioner-Company had not engaged more than 100 workers, no procedure is to be followed under section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The respondent No. 5-Union once again filed three petitions before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 14550/2005 and allied matters. These petitions came to be disposed of by common order dated 08-08-2005 passed by learned single Judge of this Court, The learned Judge stated without going into the legality and validity of larger question whether order passed by this Court in the earlier petition is complied with or not. Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad is directed to take an appropriate decision and consider the representations (of the Union) dated 11-12-2004 after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned and dispose of the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order of the Court. Simultaneously, the efforts of the Union to agitate the demands was progressing before the Conciliation Officer. After milking attempt, since the efforts for conciliation failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report on 20th October. 2004. Upon receipt of failure report from the Conciliation Officer, appropriate authority under the State Government examined the question whether industrial dispute is to be referred for its adjudication or not. The petitioner-Company as well as respondent No. 5-Union were put to notice. Both sides participated in the proceedings and submitted their response. The documents were produced and representations were made. Ultimately the State Government issued a notification dated 10-01-2005 deciding to refer the dispute for its adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara. That notification dated 10-01-2005 has been challenged by the petitioner before the learned single Judge by filing the writ petition.

(3.) It was the case of the petitioner-Company that Government erred in law in making the reference. Primarily, it is contended that there is no industrial dispute existing or apprehended and the State Government could not have therefore, made the reference. It is also contended that the petitioner-Company has closed down its business by following legal formalities. Such closure took place on 06-11-2004. It is therefore, contended that in view of the subsequent developments which the State Government has not taken into consideration, the reference is bad in law. By the impugned order, learned single Judge rejected the writ petition by upholding the order of the State Government referring the dispute to the competent Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.