EMPRESS MILLS NAGPUR Vs. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging various orders passed in B.I.R. Case No. 45 of 1986 and B.I.R. Case No. 38 of 1986. B.I.R. Case No. 45 of 1986 and B.I.R. Case No. 38 of 1986 were instituted by the respondent No. 3 against the respondent No. 4 and its Directors, under section 78, read with sections 79, 82, 83, 98A, 102, 104, 106 and 107 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the BIR Act" for short), claiming declaration of illegal change, illegal closure and illegal lockout. The said declarations has been granted by Judge, Second Labour Court, Nagpur on 28th February, 1995.

(2.) The petitioner in both these petitions had filed applications for intervention. Their applications at Exh.18 in B.I.R. Case No. 46/1986 came to be rejected on 22-12-1993. In B.I.R. Case No. 38/1986, by order passed on the same date, but below Exh.37, their application was rejected. These orders rejecting the prayers to intervene were challenged by the petitioners by filing B.I.R. Revision Nos. 3 of 1994 and 2 of 1994 respectively, before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. The Industrial Court has on 16-11-1994, by common order dismissed both these revisions. These orders dismissing the revisions are therefore mainly challenged in the present Writ Petitions. As already mentioned above, the Labour Court has finally adjudicated the controversies in both the B.I.R. Cases on 28-2-1995 and that order is also challenged, because according to the petitioners, they were not permitted to participate in the adjudication process thereof.

(3.) The dispute is in relation to erstwhile establishment of respondent No. 4 in City of Nagpur commonly known as "Empress Mills" and it was being managed at the relevant time by the respondent No. 4 - Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited. It appears that on 18-4-1986, the respondent No. 4 issued notice of suspension of its operations in the factory with immediate effect and thereafter on 3-5-1986 declared lock-out. On 29-4-1986, the present respondent No. 3 Union in both the writ petitions filed B.I.R. Case 45 of 1986 challenging this action. B.I.R. Case No. 38 of 1986 was filed on 28-2-1986 and in it the Union had sought similar declaration, contending that there was already illegal lockout or illegal change and closure.