KRISHNAMURTHI M K Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P. No. 602 of 1954, by which he refused to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the INdustrial tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 19 of 1953. The appellant was the sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name of Photo Litho Press. On 20 February, 1953, the workers employed in this press through their union made certain demands which the appellant did not comply with. Thereupon conciliation proceedings were commenced on 26 March, 1953. When these proceedings for conciliation were pending, on 11 April, 1953, the appellant issued a notice informing his employees that since he was unable to run the press owing to domestic and other circumstances their services would not be required from that day and he offered to pay them one month's wages in lieu of notice. The conciliation officer reported about his failure to bring about conciliation. Thereupon the Government of Madras, in exercise of their powers under S. 10(1)(c) of the INdustrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, referred the dispute on 7 July, 1953 to the industrial tribunal, Madras, for adjudication. IN the order of reference the dispute was described thus :

(2.) THE tribunal by its award rejected the plea of the appellant that the closure of the press was a discontinuance of the business of the owner and therefore could not constitute an industrial dispute at all. THE point which the appellant sought to make before the tribunal was that he had sold away his business to a limited liability company which was incorporated under the name of Photo Litho Press, Ltd. THE tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove this and found that the notice issued by him on 11 April, 1953 constituted a declaration of lockout and that such a lockout was illegal. On this basis the tribunal granted the relief of reinstatement of the workers besides other incidental reliefs. It is common ground that if the closure had been a case of discontinuance of business by the owner that would not amount to an industrial dispute as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. This is made clear by the decision of a Bench of this Court in the Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras 1952 (1) LLJ 364], to which one of no was a party. This decision has been reaffirmed in Jaya Bharat Tile Works v. State of Madras 1954 (1) LLJ 286]. THE difference between a lockout and discontinuance of business has been explained in the Jaya Bharat Tile Works case. THE statement of the law an this point is worth recapitulation both because it is binding on us and because it expresses succinctly and lucidly, if we may say so, the distinction thus :

(3.) IN Jaya Bharat Tile Works v. State of Madras 1954 (1) LLJ 286], to which one of us was a party, the importance of temporary closure was stressed in the following words :-"IN other words, closing down of a business is different from the closing down of a place of business. The extreme position taken up by Mr. Bhashyam in that case was that even if an employer bona fide decides to close down the business, that is, cease to carry on the business because he does not want to continue it, he cannot be permitted to do so. We refuse to accept that contention and, speaking for myself, I shall adhere to that opinion. As I pointed out therein, just as a person cannot be compelled to commence a new business to provide employment for several unemployed persons, so too a person cannot be compelled to continue a business though he decides for reasons of his own to stop it. If, however, the employer does not wish to discontinue the business but only to close down the place of business temporarily, then the tribunal can go into the question whether such closure is bona fide and for proper reasons or whether it was with the object of victimizing the workmen and coercing them to accept his own terms. We are in respectful agreement with this statement of the law. It will be seen that the question whether the closure of business was temporary discontinuance or whether it was a genuine closure would ultimately depend upon a number of factors which would have to be taken into account by the tribunal. We repeat again that we express no opinion on this question of fact which will have to be decided by the tribunal.