INDUSTRIAL PERFUMES LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL PERFUMES WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD parties. This petition is directed against the order dated January 29, 1998 whereby the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 216 of 1997 has held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. The Industrial Court has further directed the petitioner to desist from continuing the unfair labour practice with farther directions to pay wages to the employees concerned, under the terms and conditions of employment. The workmen have been directed to refund the balance amount from the amount received from the petitioner company after deducting upto date wages therefrom within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.

(2.) THE Union of employees representing the workers has filed this complaint on the ground that the closure is not bonafide and in fact there was no closure. It was their further contention that the respondent Company had not closed down their business and was carrying on the business by shifting the work from one place to another. The complainant Union relied on the balance sheet of the petitioner Company as also various minutes of discussion that had taken place as well as the report of the Directors in support of their contention that the company was not closed. It was further contended that what the petitioner had done was merely shifting theproduction activities. This in fact could be seen from Exh. C-26 which is the draft copy of the minutes of the meeting held on December 7, 1995. One of the matters for discussion therein as set out was shifting of production. It was recorded asunder:

(3.) AT the hearing of the petition it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Industrial Court is contrary to law in as much as the Industrial Court has not applied the correct test which have been set out in the judgment of the Apex Court. It is further pointed out that the petitioners could close down a part of the activities. Mere closure of the Unit or part of the activities would not result in the closure being not bonafide. It was further pointed out that merely because there u as a pending proceeding and that closure was effected without taking permission under Section 33 (1 ) (a) of the I. D. Act by itself could not have given jurisdiction to the Industrial Court to pass the order. At any rate no relief could have been given in the case of closure. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shankarprasad s/o Gopalprasad Pathak v. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur (1997-II-LLJ-195 ). In these circumstances it is pointed out that the judgment of the Industrial Court has to be set aside. The learned Counsel has relied on the judgments in the case of Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1957-1- LU-253) (SC), in the case of Indian thane Pipe Company Ltd, and Their Workmen (1969-I-LLJ-242) (SC) in the case of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969-I-LU-557) (SC) and in the case of The Workmen of Sur Iron and Steel Co. , Pvt Ltd,, and another (1971-I-LLJ-570) (SC ).