JAYANT VITAMINS LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Shekhar Bhargava submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the factory has not been closed by the petitioners. However, the Receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of recovering the dues of four Banks viz. State Bank of India, Andhra Bank, Bank of Baroda and Central Bank of India, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner Labour, M. P. Indore was in error of law in issuing RRC dated January 19, 1998 for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,52,33,464. 92 Ps. He pointed out the definition of 'closure' indicated by provisions of Section 2 (cc) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as he pointed out the provisions of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. P. Act' for convenience) by pointing out the provisions of M. P. Act, more particularly Section 110 which provides that except Chapters V-A, V-B and V-C, and the other provisions with respect to lay-off, retrenchment, compensation, special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishment and unfair labour practices nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'industrial Disputes Act') shall apply to any industry to which this Act is applied. He in all fairness also pointed out to the proviso which provides:

(2.) BY pointing out this provision and referring to the provisions of Section 25-O, Shri Bhargava submitted that the said provision has been embodied in Chapter V-B. He also made reference to provisions of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act and submitted that the RRC should not have been issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in view of provisions of Section 33-C (1 ).

(3.) THUS, according to Shri Bhargava the RRC was issued without jurisdiction and, therefore, bad in law and this Court should issue a writ of certiorari for correcting the said error in the said order resultantly quashing the said RRC.