ILAC LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition ILAC Limited (which is under B. I. F. R.) seeks to challenge order of deputy Labour Commissioner dated 25. 7. 1985 refusing permission to the Company to lay-off the workmen working in the six factories of the Company.

(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly required to be stated. The said Company owns six factories. The said Company manufacturers P. V. C. Prior to 1983 the said factories purported to be closed on the ground of adverse import conditions. The Government refused to grant permission to close down the factories. Thereafter, on 29. 5. 1985, Company sought permission of the Labour commissioner under Section (25-M) to lay-off the workmen with effect from 23. 5. 1985 on the ground of shortage of electricity supply. By impugned order dated 25. 7. 1985, the Deputy Labour commissioner rejected the permission on the ground that there was no shortage of power; that the Company did not pay electricity bills of Tata Powers Company and despite opportunities being given to the Company by the Government and Tata Power Company, the bills were not paid and on account of non-payment of bills the Tata Power Company disconnected power supply and for this reason the provisions of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted because there was no shortage of power supply and disconnection for non-payment of bills cannot be equated to shortage of power supply. The Deputy Labour Commissioner also rejected permission sought by the Company on the ground that the Company applied for permission after illegally imposing lay-off. The lay-off was implemented from May 23, 1985 whereas permission was sought six days after imposing illegal lay-off. The Deputy Labour commissioner, on facts, therefore, rejected the permission. To complete the chronology of events it may be mentioned that on the day when the impugned order was passed i. e. 25. 7. 1985 petitioner applied for reference to the Tribunal. For the reasons given hereinabove the reference application was also rejected on the ground that there was no lay-off in the eyes of law. Thereafter, the record indicates that lockout was imposed by the Company on the ground of alleged violence resorted to by the workmen. Proceedings in that regard are pending in this court. We do not wish to express any opinion regarding those proceedings. Finally, as stated above, the Company is under B. I. F. R. as of today. The result is that, till today the lay-off imposed in 1985 continues. No attempt has been made even to lift the lay off.

(3.) AT the outset we would like to point out that in the present case in view of the above events we decided to proceed on the factual aspects of the case and on merits. We heard the learned counsel on merits.