IVP LIMITED Vs. IVP LIMITED WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere in the award dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. The appellant is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is having various factories engaged in manufacture of various products like Vanaspati including bakery shortening and refining of edible oils and processing of industrial chemicals etc. Their factory at Reay Road was in operation till it was closed on 24th August, 2006. The appellant had filed an application on 19th May, 2006 (which was subsequently revised on 26th May, 2006) came to be dated 26th May, 2006 under section 25O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) seeking permission for closure of its undertaking at Ghorapdeo, Mumbai on various grounds including economical unviability due to high cost, high wages and salary, huge losses, imposition of high import duty, increase in imposition of cess, Municipal taxes, octroi duty, noncooperation of employees and import of Vanaspati being allowed at the lower rates. This application is related to the period of 20032004 and 20042005 and the Commissioner of Labour, the specified authority under the Act after taking into consideration all grounds, by a reasoned order dated 21st July, 2006 granted permission for closure of its Reay Road undertaking at Ghorapdeo, Mumbai. The order passed by the authority was communicated to the workmen by its notice dated 21st July, 2006. The workmen filed an application under section 25O(5) of the Act on 25th July, 2006. Reply in objection of the same was filed by the appellant. The Commissioner of Labour vide order dated 17th August, 2006 made a reference of the application under section 25O(1) to the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai viz. respondent No.3 to the petition. The Industrial Court made an award dated 19th July, 2007 rejecting the application seeking permission to close down its said undertaking and directed the appellant to pay full wages to all the concerned workmen treating their service as continued till the month of publication of award within two months from the date of publication of the award and to go on paying their wages until they retire.

(2.) Aggrieved from the said award dated 19th July, 2007, the appellant challenged the legality and correctness thereof by filing the writ petition No.1934 of 2007 before this court which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 28th November, 2008, giving rise to the present appeal.

(3.) The challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge interalia but mainly is on the ground that the order of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge suffers from manifest error of law as both have misread and misconstrued the evidence and documents on record. No power was vested in the Tribunal to examine the application de novo when the application was decided by quasi judicial authority. The order of reference is construed by referring the application and not order which is not the correct position of law. The reference itself was improper.