ANKUSH M BHABAL Vs. AGARWAL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 22-7-2008 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court S. A. Bobde J., (as His Lordship then was). By the said order, the above Writ Petition No.1977 of 2006 came to be allowed and resultantly the judgment and order dated 6-6-2006 holding the Respondents herein who were the Petitioners guilty of unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, came to be set aside.

(2.) The factual martix involved in the above Appeal can in brief be stated thus. The Appellants herein are the workers who were working at the relevant time with the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 was a partnership firm engaged in the business of job work of calendaring and packaging of cloth. The Respondent No.1 had its factory at Sewri, Mumbai.

(3.) The Respondent No.1 issued a notice on 12-7-1993 of the intended lock out from 26-7-1993 for the acts of certain workmen which according to the Respondent No.1 was adversely affecting the working of the Respondent No.1. However, before the intended lock out could take place on 26-7-1993, the structure wherein the factory of the Respondent No.1 was situated, came to be demolished on 13-7-1993 by the BEST authorities. It is upon this that the Respondent No.1 offered the dues to the workmen on account of its closure. It seems that some of the workmen accepted the dues whilst others did not. In view of the fact that a closure had taken place on account of the events which have transpired after notice dated 12-7-1993 was issued by the Respondent No.1, the Appellants herein a good 7 years after the said closure on 30-8-2000 filed a Complaint purporting to espouse their own cause as also cause of the other workmen of the Respondent No.1 totalling in number 76. The said Complaint was filed invoking unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The gravamen of the case of the complainants in the said complaint was that the closure effected by the Respondent No.1 is in the guise of lock out and was therefore in contravention of the Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was therefore the case of the complainants that the said closure is illegal and that the contract of employment continues and therefore the Respondent No.1 was liable to pay wages till the contract of employment was terminated. It seems that since there was a delay of about 7 years in filing the complaint, the Industrial Court condoned the delay and set upon to adjudicate the said complaint.