LAXMI STARCH LTD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the order of our learned brother G. Bikshapathy J., declining to entertain the writ petitions challenging G.O.Rt.No. 1959 and G.O.Rt.No.1960 both dated 23-8-1995, made under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) respectively of the Industrial Disputes Act

(2.) The appellant is a company having a plant for manufacture of starch at Kundara in Kerala/ a processing plant for dextrine at Cochin, a liquid glucose manufacturing plant at Kundara and a plant for manufacture of starches and dextrines at Hyderabad. Due to several adverse, conditions, the company became sick in April 1989 and approached BIFR which framed a scheme for rehabilitation appointing ICICI as the operating agency. The proposals did not succeed and a fresh rehabilitation scheme was being considered. By that time the accumulated loss of the company was Rs. 22.78 crores as on 31-3-1994 of which the accumulated loss of Hyderabad Unit alone was Rs. 14.17 crores. Hence, on 9-6-1995 the company put up a notice stating mat in spite of its best efforts it was impossible to keep the factory at Hyderabad open, since me power supply had been disconnected on 29-3-1995 and water supply on 25-5-1995 for non-payment of bills. It, therefore, declared a temporary closing-down of the factory and suspension of the manufacturing activity amounting to lock-Out of the workmen other than administrative and technical staff and watch and ward. On 30-6-1995 the lock-out was extended to the other managerial and technical staff also. The employees' union made a representation to the Conciliation Officer on 14-7-1995 claiming that the lock-out was not bom fide and should be lifted. The Condition Officer reported fallure of the condition. There upon the Government issued the impugned notification by which the following question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. G.O.Rt.No.1959 referred the following question:

(3.) The management thereupon approached this Court by the said writ petitions contending mat the real dispute as to whether the lock-out was justified, not having been referred, the G.O. prohibiting the continuance of the lock-out was untenable, and relied on the decision of 9 Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9101 of 1993 dated 2-2-1995. However, the learned single Judge was of the view that a dispute having been already referred, the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act did not suffer from any infirmity and declined to interfere.