MOHANSINH VHIKRAMSINH Vs. CONTINENTAL TEXTILE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this batch of 699 petitions, again age-old dispute and conflict between the labour and the management has come to the surface. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the common judgment and award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 17-8-1996, in Recovery Application Nos. 2595 of 1995 and 2953 of 1995, whereby, the applications of the petitionersworkmen came to be rejected. In this batch of petitions, a very interesting and important question of applicability and interpretation of the provisions of Secs. 25- O and 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I. D. Act for short) has arisen.

(2.) . A few relevant material facts giving rise to this batch of petitions may, initially, be, shortly narrated. The petitioners are the workmen of the respondent No. 1 - Continental Textile Mills, Ahmedabad. The respondent No. 1 Mill is a textile undertaking employing around 2,500 workmen. The respondent No. 1 Company had first put a notice on 2-2-1991 declaring that due to disconnection of electric supply, the Mill Company would not be in a position to give further employment to its workmen. Thereafter, by its notice dated 5-2-1991 had declared that it would not be necessary for the employees to attend to their duties and the workmen would be considered to be in service. The Government of Gujarat had filed Criminal Case No. 100 of 1992 against the concerned officers of the respondent Company for having closed the Mill without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25-O(1) of the I.D. Act. The concerned officers of the respondent Company pleaded guilty and the Court imposed a fine of only an amount of Rs. 400.00 for having illegally closed down the Mill Company. This Court in a 'suo motu' action has registered a Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 1995 for enhancement of the punishment imposed by the Criminal Court and there is no dispute that the said revision application is pending before this Court. Thereafter, the respondent Company neither paid any compensation to the workmen nor did it pay any other benefits including wages to the workmen.

(3.) . The petitioners, therefore, had filed a joint application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, for the recovery of wages and all other benefits as they are entitled to under Sec. 25-O(6) before the Labour Court at Ahmedabad. Similar application was also filed by another group of workmen of the respondent Company. Thus, there were two recovery applications before the Labour Court being Recovery Application Nos. 2595 of 1995 and 2953 of 1995. According to the case of the petitioners-workmen, they were entitled to recover wages from the respondent Company for illegal closure. The total amount claimed in the Recovery Applications came to Rs. 6,63,14,602.15 Ps. It was, inter alia, contended in the Recovery Applications that there was illegal closure with effect from 2-2-1992 and, therefore, the workmen are entitled to wages under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act; the closure of the respondent Mill Company was illegal being in violation of Sec. 25-O of the I. D. Act; the relationship between master and servants has never been legally terminated and as per the provisions of Sec. 25-O(6) the workmen were entitled to their wages and other benefits since the provision of Sec. 25-O(6) is a statutory right and, therefore, Recovery Applications were based on the existing right to claim wages of the workmen. The respondent No. 1 Company opposed the claim made in the Recovery Applications by filing a written reply dated 1-1-1996. It was, inter alia, contended in the reply that the respondent No. 1 Mill Company is not liable for the payment of claim made in the Recovery Applications and that the applications under Sec. 33-C(2) were not maintainable on the ground that there was no established preexisting right of the workmen.