CONCRETE POLES AND PAPER CONVERSION WORKERS UNION Vs. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Concrete Poles and Paper Conversion Workers' Union, Parwanoo, which is a registered Union under the Trade Union Act, on behalf of its members who are Workmen of two Industrial Units, that is, Concrete Poles Manufacturing Unit and Paper Conversion Unit, at Parwanu. The grievance raised in the petition is that the notice dated 29.1.1991 given to the workmen, whereby they have been retrenched with effect from the date of notice, is bad and may be quashed. By the impugned notice, the workmen have been given their dues in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act'). Though according to the Petitioner -Union the amount due to the workmen has been correctly calculated but they are aggrieved by the deduction of the lay off compensation paid to them during the period of 12 months preceding the date of notice. The main challenge to the notice is that the Respondent No. 1, the Himachal Pradesh State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., to whom the two Industrial units in question belonged, has more than 100 workers in its employment for running and managing its activities, including those of the said Units, as such, for the retrenchment of the workmen, the procedure prescribed under Chapter V -B of the Act was required to be followed, which has admittedly not been followed. In the alternative, the case of the Petitioner -Union is that if the number of workmen is less than 100, the procedure prescribed under Chapter V -A of the Act was required to be followed which has also not been followed inasmuch as sixty days notice of intention to close down the said two units, as provided under Sec. 25 -FFA of the Act, was not given to the State of Himachal pradesh, with the result that the closure of the said two Units was bad as a, consequence whereof the workmen were retrenched. In view of the aforesaid, it is alleged that retrenchment is also bad.

(2.) The case of Respondent No. l, as set out in the reply -affidavit, is that the said two Units were independent undertakings and the number of workmen employed in each of them was less than 50, as such, only the provisions of Sec. 25 -F of the Act were required to be applied for the retrenchment of their workmen. According to Respondent No. l, neither Chapter V -A nor Chapter V -B of the Act is applicable except the provisions of Sec. 25 -F of the Act.

(3.) During the course of arguments, Sh. D.D. Sood, learned Counsel for Respondents No. l and 2, has relied upon the definition of Industrial Establishment or Undertaking as given in Sec. 2(ka) of the Act which is as under: