MAYA PRESS MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. UPPAR SHRAMAYUKT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31892 of 2003, Maya Press Mazdoor Sangh, Allahabad, through its President Kalloo Ram has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order, dated 20.6.2003, passed by Additional Labour Commissioner, Allahabad, refusing to award wages under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50799 of 2003, Maya Press Private Limited and others have approached this Court assailing the validity of the same order by means of which it has been held that provision of Section 6-W of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable qua petitioners-establishment and further notice, dated 8.9.2003, is also subject matter of challenge by means of which, notice has been issued to show cause as to why petitioners be not prosecuted. As both the writ petitions are questioning the validity of the order, dated 20.6.2003, and as show cause notice, dated 8.9.2003, is just consequential to the same as such both the writ petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties and are being finally decided.

(2.) Brief fact giving rise to dispute in question are to the effect that in the District of Allahabad, there are two companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, namely, Maya Press Private Limited, a Private Limited Company and Mitra Prakashan Ltd., a Public Limited Company, incorporated under Companies Act. Office and establishment of both the companies are situated in the same building at Muthiganj, Allahabad. Maya Press is on ground floor whereas Mitra Prakashan is at first floor. Maya Press carried out publication work whereas Mitra Prakashan carried out entire clerical work and publication work. Both the aforementioned companies closed their business, w.e.f. 23.12.2000, and notice about closure was published in newspapers on 23.12.2000. After said closure was declared Additional Labour Commissioner. Allahabad served notice on petitioner employers asking the petitioner employers to show cause as to why action against them be not taken for having closed their establishment without taking permission from State Government, as such entire activities of the petitioner employer's is in contravention of the provision as contained under Section 25-O of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said notice, dated 23.12.2000, was objected to by mentioning that closure was not illegal and provision of Section 25-O was not at all applicable as far as petitioner employer's establishment is concerned and in this background it was requested that notices be dropped. Inspite of the said reply having been submitted and as coercive action was sought to be initiated, two writ petitions were filed before this Court being writ petition Nos. 2482 of 2001 and 2483 of 2001. Said writ petitions were ultimately finally disposed of by this Court on 11.2.2003, by giving liberty to petitioner employers to take all possible objection before the Labour Commissioner who shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. Pursuant to this liberty which had been accorded objections were filed on behalf of petitioner employers before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Allahabad and therein it has been contended that he had no jurisdiction to decide the matter as Section 25-O of Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable and to the contrary Section 6-W of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was applicable and as in the petitioners' establishment there were less than 300 workmen, as such there was no occasion of violation of the provision of Section 6-W of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While said objections were pending Kallu Ram moved an application under Section 3 of U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 for payment of wages in terms of Section 6-W of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter said application of Kallu Ram as well as objection moved on behalf of petitioners company has been considered by the Additional Labour Commissioner and impugned order in question has been passed which is subject matter of challenge in both the writ petitions.

(3.) In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31892 of 2003, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of State and therein it has been contended that establishment in question was closed without taking any prior permission, as such notice in question had been issued. It has also been contended that from the side of workmen that at M/s. Mitra Prakashan, total 262 employees were employed and at M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. total 186 employees had been employed. This fact has also been asserted that various workmen during this period have approached Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for computation of their amount and Labour Court after hearing the parties concerned in respect of 50 employees of Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. and 60 employees of Mitra Prakashan Ltd., had computed amount. It has also been asserted that on the basis of compromise till May 2003 amount of Rs. 21.00 lacs 90 thousand has been paid to the employees. The order, which has been passed, has been sought to be justified. It has been contended that closure is illegal and in contravention of the statutory provision. It has further been contended that provision of Section 3 of U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 is not applicable as such order any question does not warrant in interference by this Court.