BHARAT SEATS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. SPECIFIED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 25-N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition on behalf of the workmen raises the issue of the validity of the order issued by the government granting the permission to the management to retrench some workmen in an application filed by it under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The gradual souring of relations between the workers and the management commenced with a strike call given by the workers on 03.04.2001 and got aggravated when the management purported to take a decision to jettison 90 permanent workers and moved an application before the Government on 12.09.2002 seeking for permission to retrench them under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The justification of the management was that during the time of strike it had begun outsourcing the work of making seat covers for the cars manufactured for Maruti Udyog Limited. It was found to be a viable option and having regard to some increased commitments which they had to give for the production of the seat covers, as per the demands of Maruti Udyog Limited, they decided to close the stitching unit and avail themselves the services of an independent contractor. The workmen responded to the request to the Government made by the management through a plea that the action proposed was an act of victimization towards to the members of the petitioner-union and that such permission ought not to be granted. The Government granted the permission on 10.10.2002 but restricted the number of persons to be retrenched from 90 to 82 workmen and an application for review of the decision made by the petitioner-union did not result in any change of the decision but affirmed the same on 09.11.2002. The writ petition, as we have stated already, challenges the order passed by the Government on 10.10.2002 accepting the plea of the management for closure of a particular unit and giving them the liberty to retrench 82 workmen and the dismissal of the application for review.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Government had not considered the relevant factors which were required to be addressed namely, the want of bonafides of the management in seeking for permission for retrenchment and how it was a culmination of series of acts indulged by the management as a measure of victimization against the workmen for their participation in the strike and bolster their own preference to engage several workmen through contractors, even without going through proper legal process in the manner contemplated by Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The further objection to the order issued by the Government was that the primary attempt of the management was only to close down the stitching unit and a part of a unit being an establishment as defined under Section 2(ka) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the decision to close the unit must be treated as a decision to close the establishment and that therefore the appropriate procedure would have been only to apply to the Government for closure in the manner sought under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act and resort by the management for permission through an application under Section 25-N was not competent.