MANUGRAPH UNIT-2 EMPLOYEES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Trade Union is challenging impugned orders dtd. 3/9/2020 and 5/10/2021 passed by the Appropriate Government granting permission for closure of Unit No.2 of respondent No.2 and rejection of review under Sec. 25- O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) Respondent No.2 on 5/7/2020 applied for closure of its manufacturing Unit No.2 mainly on the ground that there has been no production in its Unit No.2 since 22/4/2019 and all 200 employees are sitting idle. The company was running in losses continuously for three to four years and total losses mounted were about Rs.33.76 crore. There was no possibility of any business flowing in 12 months after the date of filing of the application. Unit Nos.1 and 2 are functioning separately. Unit No.2 is a separate industrial establishment. There was a major worldwide impact on the newspaper industry resulting in the international market of the news industry being affected and many industries were forced to close down their business, which had an impact on the Indian market. The turnover of the company in the year 2007- 2008 was Rs.423.00 crore which scaled down to Rs.239.35 crore. No manufacturing orders were forthcoming from local and global markets despite adopting remedial measures. The Management was, therefore, left with no other option but to initiate the process of closure.

(3.) The petitioner/Trade Union contested the closure contending that losses at the end of the financial year shown by respondent No.2 in its balance sheet are diversion of funds by way of commission to related parties, making provisions for diminishing value of investment. Two promoters drew 5.5% salary out of the total salary paid to employees and also received commissions to the tune of Rs.10.38 crore in the year 2018-2019 through a company owned by the promoter's family. Respondent No.2 had filed a similar application for closure in the year 2017 and amicably settled by settlement dtd. 30/10/2017 whereby respondent No.2 withdrew its closure application. Therefore, the fresh application indicates the mala fide intentions of respondent No.2. The petitioner denied the averments of respondent No.2 that the growth of electronic media and digital news adversely affects the print newspaper industry. If the company offers good compensation, it can be considered by the workers. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the rejection of the closure application.