N K KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The factory in question was engaged in the manufacturing of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks Bags which are used in filling cement and other commodities. The management due to some insubordination and indiscipline amongst the workmen, was constrained to declare lock out. The workmen did not reform themselves and continued to work in irresponsible and indisciplined manner on account of which the production staggered considerably and the workmen indulged themselves in mass absenteeism without any lawful cause. Beside the aforesaid facts, the Wind Mular Tape Line and Cole site plants also developed a snag which could not be detected thus, causing loss in production. Despite various requests and invitations for talks, the workmen did not mend themselves. Therefore, the management had no option but to declare 'lay off' of workmen with effect from 23rd May, 1996. A notice in this behalf was also pasted on the Notice Board of the factory and a copy of the aforesaid notice was also transmitted to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, NOIDA, Ghaziabad. The management in view of Section 6-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') resorted to 'lay off' of workmen. It is noteworthy to mention here that Section 6-K of the State Act does not required any approval prior or subsequent, of any authority including the State Government.

(3.) The Assistant Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad issued a notice on 6.7.1996 calling upon the applicant as to why the applicants be not prosecuted for having violated the provisions of Section 25Q of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'the Central Act') read with Rules 75 (B) (1) (2) and (3) of the 1957 Rules. The applicants gave a reply to the aforesaid notice dated 6.7.1996 contending that the aforesaid notice is illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the provisions of Section 25M of the Central Act are not applicable, hence there was absolutely no question of violation of Section 25Q of the Central Act. The applicants further pointed out to the concerned authority that the matter in question is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 6 K of the State Act which does not, at all required obtaining prior or subsequent approval of the State Government. Thus the lay off resorted to by the applicants was absolutely legal.