SUSHMA SHARAD VARTAK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioners that Seth Industries Limited and Seth Textiles, involved in manufacture of woolen materials, spinning job work and other activities together with its 1200 employees, illegally stopped production without giving any notice or seeking permission in terms of section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the company itself was declared sick by BIFR under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 6th October, 1987 as no viable scheme could be worked out despite the repeated opportunities. On the recommendations of BIFR for winding up, finally, the company was ordered to be wound up by this court on 25th May, 1990. The validity of the orders passed by the BIFR was challenged by the company by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No.3362 of 1992 before Delhi High Court where interim orders were passed on 23rd September, 1992. Since the properties of the company were being alienated, the Woollen Kamgar Sanghatana on behalf of the workers filed complaint which was dismissed on the ground of locus standi which order of the Industrial Court was set aside by order dated 19th July, 2004 of this court directing the Industrial Court to hear the matter on merits. It is further averred by the petitioners in this petition that on or about 29th October, 2004, the company entered into clandestine and secret transaction with the Developerrespondent No.5 and the entire land and factory was purchased by respondent No.5 for consideration of Rs.14.50 crores only. The permission of the court or valuer's report etc. were not obtained and validity of this transaction is in question. In Company Petition No.262 of 2004 vide order dated 14th July, 2005, interim order to maintain statusquo was passed which was modified subsequently and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was to settle the matter regarding certain dues of the workmen. Several meetings were held but agreement could not be arrived at. Supplementary Development Agreement was also signed. Various litigations were filed by either parties. It is the allegation that after Company Petition No. 262 of 2005 was allowed to be withdrawn, somewhere on 10th November, 2006, the builder brought 1000 contract workers and anti social elements alongwith bulldozer to demolish the building factory at Dahisar.

(2.) During the pendency of these proceedings even this petition was amended to say that the agreements dated 29.10.2004 and 22.2.2006 signed between the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and respondent No. 5 and the settlements dated 1.11.2006 signed by the unions with the respondent No.2 and 3 was illegal. The petitioners also question on the above premise the correctness of the development agreements dated 29th October, 2004 and 22nd February, 2006 being illegal, void and unenforcible. It is primarily challenged on the ground that no permission of the appropriate authority was sought before closing the unit and the transactions have been entered into by the company and other respondents in a clandestine and improper manner. Interest of the workmen has been entirely overlooked and alleged settlements dated 1.11.2006 is not binding and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection as regards to the maintainability of the writ petition. It was stated that there are only four petitioners who have approached the court in their personal capacity while large number of workmen who are members of respondent No.7 Union have already taken the benefits accruing under the settlement. The settlement was voluntary and executed in accordance with law with due compliance to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. While alleging that the present petition is malafide and is only intended to delay the proceedings particularly even when complaints under MRTU & PULP Act have already been filed to which one of the petitioners viz. petitioner No.1 is a party and even name of other petitioner No.3 has been arrayed in the complaint. With reference to these facts, it is stated that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the reasons: