MATHANGI ARJANUDU Vs. K C P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are workmen employed in the K.C.P. Ltd., Vuyyuru, Krishna District. Some of the petitioners have been in the employment for 20 years and more. According to them, the K..C.P. Ltd., Vuyyuru is a single and integral industrial establishment which has engaged itself in the manufacture of sugar, distillery products and confectionery. These three products are manufactured in a single factory situated at Vuyyuru. The management, control and ownership of these three sections is one and the same. Even the accounts section and the plant manager, the Labour Officer and the Welfare Officer are the same for all the three units. There is also only one-balance sheet and the bonus is fixed and paid by the respondent- company at the rate fixed for all these three units. Even the Standing Orders for all the three units are one. In other words, the petitioners contend that the three sections of he respondent-company, i.e., the sugar,distillery products and confectionery are in fact one unit and not separate and independent units. According to the petitioners, the confectionery section has a total strength of 32 employees. The respondent-company served on them memos of retrenchment dated 5th February, 1973 on 6th February, 1973, stating that the confectionery section, was being closed down and the services of the petitioners were terminated with effect fro in 7th February 1973. The petitioners considering this retrenchment and termination of their services to be illegal and invalid had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No.2226 of 1973, seeking their reinstatement and for other reliefs. But this Court had dismissed the same at the admission stage. The petitioners then moved the statutory authority viz-, the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur raising an industiial dispute regarding the illegal termination of their services by the 1st respondent. The entire matter was taken up and the remarks of the management were called for. The management pleaded that the . confectioneiy section was a separate and independent unit. Eventually the conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted his report to Government. On receipt of the report of the Conciliation Officer, the Government passed an order thereon in Government Home (Labour-I) Department letter No. 4511 (Labour 1/75-1) declining to refer the dispute for adjudication which is in the following terms :-

(2.) The Government have filed counter the sum and substance of which is that the unit of confectionery is a separate unit and it was closed on the ground that it was running on loss and therefore its closure is justified. The petitioners have been given retrenchment compensation under section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Government is well within its jurisdiction not to refer the dispute to the authority mentioned in section 10 (1) of the Act.

(3.) One V. Guruswamy, who is the Plant Manager of respondent No. 1 has also filed a counter pointing out the ingredients to show that this unit of confectionery was an independent unit. The case of respondent No. 1 is that the confectionery factory had to be closed down on 7th February, 1973 and all the payments like notice pay, retrenchment compensation were given to the workmen on 6th February, 1973, excepting one Nageswara- rao who received the payment on 7th February, 1973 as he was not available on 6th February, 1973. Respondent No. 1 further pleaded that there was no need for issuing a closure rotice for a period of 2 months as contemplated by rules as, such a notice is applicable to a factory where 50 or more workmen are employed but not to the confectionery factory where 32 workmen are employed as admitted to by the petitioners. It was further averred in the counter filed by respondent No. 1 that the Management had appointed petitioner Nos. 19 14,16,13,11 and g and one Yellamalai as fresh workers in the sugar factory during lg72-73; but they did not join. Once again, Respondent No. 1 also provided seasonal jobs during lg72-73 for petitioners Nos. 12, 6, 10, 8 and 21 and though they worked for the full season in the year 1972-73 they did not turn up for the subsequent seasons.