MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Labour Commissioner, Baddi (complainant) filed a complaint against the present petitioners for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 25(R) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with H.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1974. It was asserted that the management of M/s Devyani Food Industry served a notice of closure upon the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh vide an e-mail dtd. 16/5/2020 under Sec. 25(FFA) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that the management had decided to permanently close their factory/establishment. The Joint Labour Commissioner directed the Labour Officer, Baddi to conduct an inquiry regarding the number of workmen employed by the management in the preceding 12 months before serving the notice. It was also directed that all affected workmen should be given their full and final dues as per the provisions of applicable labour laws. The Labour Officer informed the Labour Commissioner vide letter dtd. 27/6/2020 that Management had given an impression that it was not closing the factory and that the factory would run at normal course. The production and dispatch activities of the unit were going on smoothly. Management did not produce the record despite the repeated visits of the Labour Officer; hence, the Labour Officer obtained the figure of workers from the Devyani Karamchari Sangh, as per which 86 workers were working in the factory. He also reported that there were no exceptional circumstances to show that the factory could not carry out its business. Rakesh Sharma (President, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Himachal Pradesh) made a complaint dtd. 29/7/2020 stating that the notice of closure was not given to the workers of the Company. The services of some of the workers were terminated without any notice. 105-110 workers were engaged in the company. The request was made to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Commissioner directed the Labour Officer to reinvestigate the matter vide letter dtd. 30/6/2020 and ascertain the total strength of the workers. The Labour Officer reinvestigated the matter and submitted a revised report dtd. 1/7/2020 informing that 150 workmen were employed in the factory. He also supplied the list of 150 workmen provided to him by Devyani Karamchari Sangh. The Labour Officer concluded that no exceptional circumstances justified the closure of the business. The Joint Labour Commissioner asked the Factory Manager not to close the factory without obtaining permission as required under Sec. 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act vide letter dtd. 1/7/2020. Labour Officer, Baddi informed the Labour Commissioner that the management had closed the establishment on 6/7/2020 despite the letter of the Labour Commissioner in violation of Sec. 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is punishable under Sec. 25(R); hence, a complaint was filed against the Management by the Labour Inspector for taking action as per the law.

(2.) Being aggrieved from the complaint, the present petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order and bailable warrants issued by the Court, as well as, the complaint filed by the Labour Inspector. It is asserted that the company planned to close its plant and sent a letter dtd. 7/5/2020 regarding the notice of closure. An e-mail was sent to the Labour Officer to conduct an inquiry. The Labour Officer served a show cause notice upon the company, which was duly replied to. The company filed a civil suit against the workers and obtained an injunction order. The company affixed a notice on the notice board on 6/7/2020 stating that the final settlement amount would be transferred to the workmen by the evening of 6/7/2020 in their accounts. The experience letter will be given on 7/7/2020. A supplementary demand letter was received from the union, which was duly replied to. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla for adjudication of the issues. A letter was sent for conciliation without taking into consideration the fact that the matter was already referred to the appropriate Government. Union also filed a civil suit for restraining the company from selling/shifting and disposing of the machinery/material/finished products and other assets except as per the law. This application was dismissed. The complaint was filed to harass and pressurise the management. The Court also issued the summons and the bailable warrants. Notice under Sec. 25(FFA) of the Act was given because the number of employees was less than 100. Sec. 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act applies only if the number of employees is more than 100. The subsequent inquiry conducted by the Labour Officer was bad and was conducted without associating with the petitioners. The reference was challenged in the writ petitions before the High Court. Two references have been made in the same matter, one of which has been challenged and the other is to be challenged. The continuation of the complaint amounts to the abuse of the process of the law; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint, summoning order and bailable warrants be quashed.

(3.) The State filed a reply making a preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the complaint were reproduced. It was asserted that power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly in the rarest of rare cases. The petition does not establish any prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. The complaint was filed against the petitioners after obtaining permission from the competent authority. The petitioners had not submitted the record to the Labour Officer and he specifically mentioned this fact in the report submitted by him. Opportunities were given to the company to join the conciliation proceedings but the company failed to join the proceedings without any justification. The complaint was rightly filed because the permission for closing down the factory was not given by the appropriate Government. The petitioners had not complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act before closing down the factory. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.