(1.) I must note at the outset that the learned counsel for respondent No. I (hereinafter referred as respondent) made a fair offer that the respondent is prepared to pay as per V. R. Scheme last introduced by the respondent in 1997 to about 70 remaining workmen, but it is not accepted by the petitioner-Union.
(2.) COMPLAINT of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with item 6 of the Schedule 2 and item 9 of Schedule 4 of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 came to be filed by the petitioner, By the impugned order dated February 24, 1999 the said complaint is partly allowed by the industrial Court, Thane. It has been held that closure of undertaking on the basis of notices dated February 24, 1998 is not illegal but the Court directed payment of wages for July 1991 to all workmen involved in the Complaint ULP No. 431/91. Further closure compensation to workmen as per Section 25-FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is also directed to be paid, if not paid. This is challenged here.
(3.) NOTICE dated February 24, 1998 under Section 25-FFA of Industrial Disputes Act came to be issued by the respondent intending to close down this undertaking. It is closed on and from April 26, 1998. Respondent has suffered losses and the accumulated loss for the year 1997-98 was of Rs. 27. 5 crores. The contention of the petitioner was that there was lock-out, but it has been negative by the Industrial Court.