(1.) THE petitioner/Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. is a company registered and governed under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The head office of the Company is situated at Pimpri, Pune. It is carrying on the business of manufacturing antibiotics and other life saving medicines and is having its sales office at various places throughout India. The shares of the petitioner Company are in the name of the President, Union of India. The financial activities of the petitioner Company are being controlled by the Central Government through its Ministry of Industries.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 is a Trade Union organised for the casual employees working at Jabalpur. Orders from the customers were received by the Jabalpur Office and they were in turn sent to the Head Office at Bhopal within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner submits that the Sale Depot at Jabalpur was not profitable for the Company and the same was closed for bona fide reasons. Closure notice Annexure -B was served on respondent No. 1 on 6 -1 -1986.
(3.) THE petitioner's case is that the closure was ordered and retrenchment compensation was paid to the employees. Aggrieved by the action of petitioner, workers Union/respondent No. 1 raised dispute, which was referred by the Ministry of Labour, State of M. P. to the Labour Court, Jabalpur for adjudication. The question referred was, whether the retrenchment of Shri Shiv Prasad Nair, Muralidhar Nair, Surinder Nath Ojha, K. Anilendran, H. P. Tiwari, Virendra Kumar Dubey, Ku. M. K. Vilasini, Ku. Meena D. Vachhani is valid and proper? If not, then what relief should be granted and what instructions should be given to the employer in this regard. Both the parties filed their statements before the Labour Court. The case set up by respondent No. 1/Union is that the management started victimising the employees for taking part in the trade Union activities. On 9th Nov. 1985 Union raised various demands including one of regularisation of employees and secondly, reinstatement of four employees with immediate effect. Collector was also approached in the matter. The management instead of redressing the grievance, started harassing the workers. The management with mala fide intention issued a closure notice on 2 -1 -1986. The closure notice is a colourable device and the management did not want to regularise the services of the workers. In spite of the fact that there were vacancies in the Jabalpur Branch. The management had called workman for interview for regularisation on various posts. On 21 -2 -1985 interviews were held. The recommendations were made to the concerned officers of the Jabalpur Branch for regularising the workers. The employees were in continuous service. They had worked for more than 240 days. The management did not follow the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act. No notice was given as per provision of section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The provision requires notice of the closure to a representative of workers. Jabalpur is a centrally located place, the reasons shown for closure were incorrect. The management for the convenience of its officers shifted the Jabalpur branch to Indore. The management could not have retrenched the employees as those employees should have been shifted along with office and given employment at the Indore. The workmen had consented to work at Indore Office. On merits management contended that Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. is a registered company and controlled by Central Government. The office at Jabalpur was not economically viable in view of which decision to close its branch at Jabalpur was taken. The workmen were paid retrenchment/closure compensation under section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workers have accepted the compensation. Workers were given notice of closure of Branch. The branch was closed from 6 -1 -1986 and the notice was given on 2 -1 -1986. The closure was for bona fide reasons. The case file shall be produced in the Hon'ble Court at the appropriate stage. The Jabalpur branch was managing its own affairs independently. The branch was not having more than 50 employees and was carrying on sale and marketing activities. The action taken by them is proper and calls for no interference.