DEVRAJ RAMDHAWAN Vs. ROHIT MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of petitions, since the common question of law and facts are involved and with the consent of the parties, the matters are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgments and orders passed by Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos.52 of 2002 to 73 of 2002 at Annexure `E' in the compilation and a further prayer is made to direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs.

(3.) It appears from the record that respondent no.1 mill was declared as sick unit by the Board of Industrial Finance & Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `BIFR' for short) and as per the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `SICA' for short), a scheme was sanctioned for the revival of respondent no.1 mill. In the said sanctioned scheme, amalgamation of respondent no.1 mill with the respondent no.2 mill was provided for as per the provisions of `SICA' and the provision was made for retrenchment of 659 permanent employees and 301 badli employees. It appears from the record that it was also mentioned in the said scheme that respondent no.3 Union had entered into agreements dated 27.7.1990 and 4.11.1995 with regard to the retrenchment of workmen. It appears from the record that as and when respondent no.1 mill was amalgamated with respondent no.2 mill, some of the workers had raised objections as per the provisions of `SICA' to the `BIFR' when the scheme was a draft scheme and it was not sanctioned wherein it was stated that the agreements entered into by respondent no.3 union clearly indicated that the voluntarily resignations were to be obtained from the workers. It was also stated in the said objection that respondent no.3 union had acted contrary to the interest of the workmen and respondent no.3 Union had given a device to the respondent mills to circumvent the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which provided for the protection of the workmen against the action of the mill regarding retrenchment of the workmen. It was also stated in the said objection that no provision can be made in the sanctioned scheme for retrenching the workmen on the basis of these agreements which are ex facie contrary to the provisions of I.D.Act and contrary to the interest of the workmen. It also appears from the record that in spite of the objections lodged before the BIFR, the objections were not considered by the BIFR and the scheme for amalgamation of the respondent no.1 mill with the respondent no.2 mill was sanctioned with a provision of retrenchment of 659 permanent workmen and 301 badli workmen of the respondent no.1 mill. It appears that some of the workmen of the respondent no.1 mill had also represented to the respondent no.3 union that the course adopted by the Union was contrary to the interest of the workmen and for entering the agreement dated 4.11.1995 and other similar issues. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR providing for retrenchment of 659 permanent workmen and 301 badli workmen, the workmen preferred an appeal being Appeal No.94 of 1997 under Section 25 of the SICA before the Appellate Authority for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (for short `AAIFR') which was rejected by order dated 25.7.1997. It also appears from the record that some of the workmen, including the petitioners, preferred T-Applications before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad contending that all the workmen were illegally retrenched from 1.11.1996 by the respondent no.1 mill and respondent no. 1 mill illegally stopped to allot the work to the workmen and ultimately, the Labour court was pleased to decide that the workmen had not obtained the consent from BIFR and, therefore, the applications were rejected on the preliminary ground of maintainability of jurisdiction. It also appears that the petitioners and other workmen challenged the order passed by the Labour Court at exh. 6 before the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad by way of appeal nos. 52 of 2002 to 73 of 2002 which were dismissed by a common order on the ground that without the consent of the BIFR under Section 22(1) of the SICA, no proceedings can be initiated against the sick company.