DIGVIJAY CEMENT COMPANY LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company is challenging the legality of two orders passed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(i)(d) and under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The facts giving rise to the passing of these orders are as follows:

(2.) The petitioners are a Limited Company having their factory at Sewree, Bombay, and in which about 219 workers are employed. The workers are represented by respondent No. 3-Union. On January 12, 1985, the respondent No. 3 Union informed the Minister for Industries, Government of India, New Delhi, that the petitioner Company had number of factories in the country and one of the major Unit is at Sikka in Gujarat State and that Unit supplies raw materials for the manufacture of Cement to the Bombay factory. The Union pointed out that the Company is not being run to the full capacity and apprehended that the management may close down the Unit as the Company is diversifying the production in other Units. The Union pointed out that in case, the petitioner Company closed the Unit at Bombay, it would result in 300 workers rendering jobless. The copies of this communication were also sent to the Minister of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. Another letter was addressed on February 1, 1985 by the Union to the Minister for Labour, Government of Maharashtra, pointing out that the management had earlier settled the employees' long standing demands amicably and there is no existing labour problem, but inspite of that fact, the management is trying to close down the Unit step by step. The letter points out that the conduct of the management is not bona fide and the production is reduced with the idea of diversification of Unit to other places and the Government should look into the matter to protect the workmen.

(3.) In view of the grave concern caused by the said two letters, the Department of Labour, of the State Government took immediate action through the Office of the Commissioner of Labour, On February 2, 1985, the petitioner Company was requested to attend the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on February 6, 1985 in connection with the labour situation prevailing in the Company. The Legal Adviser of the Company attended the meeting and assured that the labour situation was absolutely normal and promised to enquire whether any trouble is apprehended in future. The Legal Adviser thereafter did not bother to give any information to the labour Commissioner. The Commissioner of Labour thereupon called a joint meeting of the representatives of the Union and the management of February 27, 1985, but the management remained absent. The Commissioner of Labour spoke over the telephone to the Works Manager of the petitioner Company and fixed another appointment for a joint conference. The Legal Adviser alone appeared on behalf of the Company and sought adjournment on the ground that responsible Officers of the Company are not available. Accordingly, the meeting was postponed to March 13, 1985.