INDIA CEMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA; ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL); GENERAL MANAGER, INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED; K S KRISHNAMOORTHY TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein have filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge, praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the fourth respondent from effecting closure on or after 16.10.2006, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, more particularly Section 33 of the Act.

(2.) The appellants are the employees of the fourth respondent. The 4th respondent is the contractor of the third respondent for transporting limestone from quarry/mines to the factory. According to the appellants, the 4th respondent is carrying on this work for the last 40 years and one Mr. K.S. Krishnamoorty who started the transport died and now his children are continuing the same under the name and style of K.S. Krishnamoorty Transport; that K.S. Krishnamoorthy also started Krishna Mines and the children of K.S. Krishnamoorthy are continuing the said business; that both Krishna Mines and K.S. Krishnamoorthy Transports function at the same premises and the purpose of business is also common; that Krishna Mines is performing lime stone quarry/mines and K.S. Krishnamoorthy Transport, transports the limestone from the said quarry/mines to the factory of India Cements, Sankar Nagar and there is a clear functional integrality between the entities and one Ravi Sankar is signing as Manager for K.S. Krishnamoorty Transport and as a Manager for Krishna Mines and both functions from the same address and they have the same telephone number and address for communication; that the 44 employees who are concerned in this case are drivers and workers driving lorries and discharging incidental works and suddenly during May, 2006 the 4th respondent stopped operating 8 lorries and without giving job to some drivers, they have engaged private transport to carryout the very same job; that this matter was raised as an industrial dispute under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the second respondent, wherein besides contending that only the State Government is the appropriate Government as the 4th respondent is registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act with the State Government, the 4th respondent has also filed a statement dated 18.9.2006 stating that they are going to close down the establishment with effect from 16.10.2006. In these circumstances, the appellant has filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner/appellant and the 4th respondent has also filed a reply counter. The firm stand of the fourth respondent is that they are completely dependent on the third respondent for their business and in spite of many requests to enhance the contract amount, in view of the fact that the cost of fuel, salaries of the employees and other incidental charges have gone up manifold, the third respondent has declined to increase the transportation charges, and ultimately by the notice dated 19.6.2006, the third respondent has terminated the contract. It has further been submitted by the fourth respondent that even though they were running the organisation with heavy losses for quite a long time, they are not in a position to bear the loss any more and hence only after complying with the mandatory requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act, they have issued the closure notice on 14.10.2006. It has further been argued on behalf of the 4th respondent that they being registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act with the State Government, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the appellants.