RANI DUTT Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for, the adjudication of this petition are that the members of the petitioners' union were engaged by respondent No. 3 since 1983-84 onwards. Respondent No. 3 had moved an application to respondent no. 1 seeking permission of closure of the factory under sub-section (1) of section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake) on 4. 4. 2003. It was specifically mentioned in the application dated 4. 4. 2003 that number of employees whose services were to be terminated on account of the closure of the unit was 149. The application was rejected on 9. 5. 2003 whereby the permission was not accorded for the proposed closure of the unit. Respondent No. 3 i. e. management approached the State Government on 15. 12. 2003 under section 29 (N) of the Act seeking permission for retrenchment of 50 workmen out of 141 workmen with effect from 15. 3. 2004. The application was decided on 12. 12. 2004 whereby the state Government accorded permission to retrench 32 workmen out of 1. 41 workmen. A settlement was arrived at between the workmen and the management1 on 8. 2. 2004. It appears from the record that a settlement was arrived at between individual workman and the management under section 18 (1) of the Act on 31. 1. 2005. A communication to this effect was sent by the management to the State Government on 8:2. 2005. The Labour Inspector, Dehra issued a notice to respondent No. 3 on 15. 2. 2005 bringing to its notice that the workmen have been retrenched with intention to close down the factory without complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The management sent a reply to the notice on 21. 2. 2005 primarily contending therein that the workmen had tendered their resignations voluntarily, it was also highlighted that there was no settlement with the union and the matter was settled with' the individual workman. An inquiry was also conducted by the labour Inspector and he submitted his report to the labour Officer on 22. 3. 2005. The copy of the same is Annexure R-3/h. The management had also filed cmp bearing No. 641 of 2008 to reinforce their plea that Chapter VB of the Act was not applicable for the reasons that less than 100 workmen were engaged in the factory. It also appears from the pleadings of the parties that a review petition was also filed by the management against the order dated 9. 5. 2003 but the same was withdrawn.

(2.) MR. Ajay Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners had strenuously argued that the purported settlement dated 31. 1. 2005 is contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 25n of the Act. He also contended that the management had to seek the permission of the State before effecting the retrenchment of the workmen and the factory in question has been closed by the management without seeking the mandatory permission of the State under section 25 (0) of the Act. He further contended that since the settlement is against the public policy and is also in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, this will not bind the workmen even though they might have accepted the compensation money paid to them. He also submitted that the workmen cannot waive off their legal and fundamental rights even though they may have accepted the money paid to them by the management. The learned Additional Advocate-General has supported the decisions taken by the State Government from time to time.

(3.) MR. S. S. Kaushal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the management had strenuously argued that the writ petition is not maintainable by a non-registered union. He also contended that once a settlement has been arrived at between the workmen and the management under section 18 (1 ). of the act, the same is binding between the. parties and neither of the parties can be permitted to wriggle out of the same. He further submitted that Chapter vb of the Act was hot applicable in the present case since according to him less than 100 workmen were engaged in the factory. He also argued that the petitioners had alternative remedy to approach the machinery provided under the provisions of the Act and the petition in the present form is not maintainable. He lastly argued that the workmen had tendered their resignations which were accepted by the management and their dues have already been paid. He denies that the factory has been closed down without the permission of the government.