OATTAIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by eighty seven workmen of IDL Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Company) complaining against their lay-off and retrenchment by the said company. These petitioners had been laid off on 8-2-1980 and they were later retrenched on 7-4-1980. The petitioners claim that their lay-off as well as retrenchment was brought about by the said Company contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. XXXII of 1976). It is on that basis, that they pray this Court should issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Commissioner of Labour, the first respondent herein to hold that their lay-off and retrenchment were in violation of the statutory provisions and are therefore null and void and to direct the laid Company to continue them in service with back wages.

(2.) The Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, although served with rule Nisi of this Court, entered no appearance and filed no counter. He virtually remained ex parte. The Company, the second respondent, had filed a counter and contested this application. The Company while admitting the facts relating to lay-off and retrenchment and feebly attempting to justify the same raised an important question relating to the competence of this Court to issue a Writ to the aforesaid Company under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Company's contention is that it was merely an association of private individuals incorporated under the Companies Act like many other companies and that its activities were purely private in nature without there ever being any control exercised by it over others or its activities being shared or participated in by th 5 State or Central Governments. The Company pleaded that it had no public duties to perform or responsibilities to discharge and that therefore it is not a proper person to be reached under Article 226 of the Constitution. In paragraph 3 of its counter, the Company said:

(3.) On merits, the Company justifies the lay-off on the ground of 30 percent power-cut imposed by the A P. State Electrictiy Board on the supply of electricity to all industries, with effect from 4th September, 1979 and also on the ground of non-availability of high speed diesel oil. According to the Company as the lay-off was due to power cut and non-availability of diesel oil, no question of obtaining previous permission of the State authorities as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act could arise.