DATTATRAYA GANPAT GAIKWAD Vs. SUNITA DEVI SINGHANIYA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9 November 2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants' Writ Petition challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Thane rejecting the Reference (IT) No. 37 of 2003 made at the instance of the Shramik Sena Workers Union of which the appellants claim to be the members.

(2.) The Shramik Sena Workers Union had contended that the appellants were workmen employed by the respondent employer and that the appellants were engaged in the activities of laundry, canteen and other departments of the hospital which were being run by the aid of the power, where more than 10 workmen were employed in each Department. The Industrial Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that the workmen were already paid closure compensation in accordance with law. As regards the alleged liability of the respondent to obtain prior approval of the Government for closure of the hospital, the Tribunal held that Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applicable to the respondent hospital as it was not an industrial establishment as defined by Section 25 L(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. The Tribunal held that the hospital was required to be closed down on account of the violent attack and destruction of the hospital in the year 2001. The Tribunal held that the closure was beyond the control of the hospital management and, therefore, the demand made by the workmen and the reference were not sustainable. As regards the contention that the closure was in violation of Section 25 O and N of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal gave a finding that the Union had failed to prove that any manufacturing process was going on in the hospital.

(3.) The learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the petition after holding that it cannot be said that the respondent hospital satisfied the requirement of Section 25 L(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the definition of factory under the Factories Act.