MAMC SRAMAJIBI UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of order dated 5th October, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved against this order both these appeals have been filed. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the common order.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the Central Government on 21st September, 2001 passed an order under section 25(0) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) permitting the management to close two units of Mining and allied Machinery Corporation Limited for short (MAMC). An application No. MAM/RO/ND dated 27.7.2001 was filed by the management requesting for closure of MAMC Works at Durgapur and Regional Workshop at Nagpur with effect from 29th October, 2001. On the basis of the materials placed by the management the Government of India by the communication dated 21st September, 2001 permitted the management to close down the above two industrial units. While permitting the management to close down the above two industries the Government of India directed that the workmen of these two units should be given one more chance to exercise their option for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) within 15 days from the date of issue of the order. Aggrieved against this order two writ petitions were filed by two unions and they were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common order dated 5th October, 2001 upholding the order of closure dated 21st September, 2001 passed by the Central Government under section 25(0) of the Act. Aggrieved against this order the unions have preferred both the appeals and they are being disposed of by the common order.

(3.) It may be relevant to mention here that both the industrial units were established in 1965 and except for the years 1972-76 the company had been continuously making losses. The matter was referred to the BIFR in 1992. The Operating Agency namely IFCI submitted a report suggesting cash infusion of Rs. 142 crores for reviving and reconstructing the company. However, no feasible revival package could be worked out. The management was of the view that it is not possible to infuse additional money for revival of the aforesaid two industrial units. The company introduced VSS at three or four times between 1988 to 2001. Out of the total of 6000 employees only 1490 workers remained and rest of them in phased manner took VSS or VRS and walked out of the above two units. On the basis of the materials placed a notice was given to the workers and it was submitted that there are 1490 workers and the company should not be closed. It was also contended that since the Central Government has delegated the powers under the Act to the State Government the application for closure under section 25(0) of the Act should not be heard by the Central Government. However, after considering the matter permission was granted for closure by the Central Government by its order dated 21st September, 2001 under section 25(0) of the Act. The learned single Judge after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Central Government under section 25(0) of the Act is fully justified and declined to interfere in the matter.