PRITAM S/O BALKRISHNA RAIBOLE Vs. SIMPLEX MILLS COMPANY LTD SHIVANI, TQ AND DISTT AKOLA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition challenges an award passed by Industrial Court, Akola in a reference. The subject matter of the reference concerns closure of respondent No. 1 company and permission granted for such closure by the State Government.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 is a company governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, running textile mills at Shivni in Akola. By its application dated 29th April, 2008, respondent No. 1 sought permission under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as "the Act" for brevity) to effect closure of its undertaking. The application was opposed by respondent No. 2-recognized union and respondent No. 3 Maharashtra Samarth Kamgar Sanghtana. By his order dated 25th September, 2008, the Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra State, Mumbai allowed the application and permitted respondent No. 1 to permanently close its industry at village Shivni in Akola. Respondent No. 2, which is a recognized union of workmen of respondent No. 1, thereupon challenged the permission for closure under subsection (5) of Section 25O of the Act. The challenge was registered as a reference before the Industrial Court, Akola on an order passed by the Commissioner of Labour. On 12th August, 2009, the Industrial Court framed issues in the reference and fixed the matter for evidence. The reference was adjourned from time to time. On 27th January, 2012, whilst the reference was pending, respondent No. 1 filed an application for allowing it to close the undertaking subject to the final decision of the Industrial Court in the reference. On 14th September, 2012, that application was allowed by the Industrial Court. This order was challenged by respondent No. 3 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4931 of 2012. Rule was issued by this Court on the petition and the impugned order of 14th September, 2012 was stayed with directions to the Industrial Court to decide the reference as expeditiously as possible. Whilst the reference was thus pending adjudication and the respondent continued to carry on its undertaking, on 5th April, 2014, respondent No. 1 and the recognized union, i.e. respondent No. 2, entered into an agreement of settlement, agreeing to the closure of the company with effect from 9th April, 2014. On 7th April, 2014, respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Industrial Court for passing appropriate orders in terms of this settlement. This application was opposed by the petitioners along with some other employees through respondent No. 3 union. On 9th April, 2014, the Industrial Court pronounced the operative part of the award, answering the reference in terms of the settlement arrived at between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This pronouncement was initially challenged by petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 herein before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2014. This Court, by its order dated 29th April, 2014, disposed of that writ petition with liberty to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 to file a fresh petition after publication of the award. The award was declared on 27th May, 2014. The present petition is filed in pursuance of the liberty reserved.