GAJRAJ BABUNANDAN VARMA Vs. IGLOO COLD STORAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court dated 30.9.1997 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 33 of 1996. The revision application filed by the respondent No. 1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent, has been allowed and the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 635 of 1988 has been set aside.

(2.) It appears that this petition was heard finally on 20.1.2009 when this Court recorded that the petition was not being pressed at the instance of petitioner No. 2 who apparently had settled the dues with the 1st respondent. The petition was allowed in the absence of the respondents and hence an L.P.A. was filed by the respondent. On 16.7.2009 that L.P.A. was allowed with certain directions and the writ petition was restored to the file of this Court. Therefore, the petition is being considered only in respect of petitioner No. 1 - Gajraj Babunandan Verma (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner").

(3.) A complaint was filed by the Dyes & Chemical Workers Union under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The complaint was filed on behalf of 8 workers who were illegally terminated from service with effect from 16.12.1988. According to the union, a settlement was arrived at between the respondent and the union on 23.9.1988 with respect to the general demands. Three months later, the respondent displayed a notice of closure of one of its two divisions i.e. the Ice Manufacturing Division with immediate effect. The activities of the other division i.e. of the Cold Storage Division, continued. The union filed the complaint on behalf of 8 employees whose services were terminated on account of the closure of the Ice Manufacturing Division, contending that the respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the I.D. Act). The union had also contended that the partial closure was illegal as it was not effected in accordance with the provisions of the I.D. Act. The union contended that besides 19 permanent employees, there were 140 employees who were employed through a contractor. Thus, according to the union, the number of workers was more than 100, requiring the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 25N as well. The union contended that the termination of the employees from service was not in good faith but in colourable exercise of the employer's rights.