AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed against the Impugned award of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, dated 6.8.83, Annexure A to the writ petition.
The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. This Company carries on several businesses. One of such businesses was a Dehydration Unit in which the Petitioner prepared dehydrated peas. For the purpose of this business, the Petitioner employed Block Supervisors, Area Supervisors, Drivers, Agriculture and Assistant Agriculture Managers, as stated in paragraph 11 of the written statement of the company filed before the Labour Court which is Annexure Z (a) to the writ petition. In this writ petition we are concerned with the said Agricultural Department pertaining to the Dehydration Unit. In paragraph 12 (second), 18 and 20 of the written statement of the company filed before the Labour Court it is stated that the company used to enter into contracts with the growers who had grown their peas in their agricultural fields. These employees of the Petitioner used to contact farmers and encourage them to grow peas for supplying to the company and these peas after purchase were taken to the Dehydration Unit where they were processed for sale. The employees also used to issue seeds and fertilizer to such farmers and supervise sowing and harvesting of such peas.
In October, 1972 this entire business of the Petitioner was closed down in view of heavy losses. The Dehydration Unit was closed down and the Agricultural Department connected thereto was also closed down permanently and the services of the workmen concerned were terminated. These workmen concerned raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court which has passed the impugned award in their favour, hence this writ petition.
The Labour Court has observed in its award that in addition to the tinning of peas the Petitioner was also manufacturing animal feed at Ghaziabad. and hence there was only partial closure and not complete closure. It was also observed that juniors to the workmen were given alternative employment by the Petitioner. On the basis of these contentions the Labour Court decided against the employer.
Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is a difference between closure and retrenchment as observed by the Supreme Court in H.P. Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Employees Union v. State of H.P. and Ors., 1996 (7) SCC 139 In the case of closure the workmen concerned can only claim closure compensation u/s 25FFF, but they cannot claim the benefit of Section 25F, Section 25G or Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (which correspond to Section 6N, Section 6-O, Section 6P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act).
It is settled law that when the employer claims that it has closed down its business, the Labour Court can only see whether in fact there is a closure or was it a sham or camouflage, but the Labour Court cannot go into the motive of the closure vide Bernards Ice Factory Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1957 ILTJ 253 (SC) ; Tea Districts Labour Association, Calcutta Vs. Ex-employees of Tea Districts Labour Association and Another, ; Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, .
Sri K. P. Agarwal learned counsel for the Respondent workmen submitted that there was no genuine closure and it was only a sham. I cannot agree with this submission. When the clear finding of the Labour Court is that the entire agricultural operations has been closed down, merely because the Petitioner may have continued to do other business such as manufacturing of animal feed, it does not mean that there was no genuine closure. An employer may have several business, and if one business has been closed down, it cannot be said that it is not a genuine closure merely because other businesses are continuing. The business of manufacturing animal feed is entirely different from the business of processing peas. Hence, I cannot agree with the Labour Court that there was only partial closure. In my opinion, there was complete closure of the business in question, and hence the Labour Court had no right to go into the motive of closure and record a finding of victimization, etc.
As regards the question whether the Petitioner should have offered alternative accommodation to the workers in question, it is submitted by Sri Sudhir Chandra learned counsel for the Petitioner, that there is no right in the workers to get alternative accommodation in the case of a closure. In Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees'' Union, Hyderabad and another etc. etc., (Para 16) it has been observed by the Supreme Court that workers of one establishment cannot claim as of right to be absorbed in another unit on closure of the unit where they were working. In Workmen of the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. 1970 LIC (SC) 755, it has been observed that a worker cannot ask the company to reemploy him on the closure of a business.
Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by Sri Sudhir Chandra, there is no question of re-employment in the present case. In the evidence of Sri R. D. Rellan which is Annexure G to the rejoinder-affidavit, it has been stated that the company offered alternative employment to the workmen concerned through the Union. Only 12 workers accepted including three juniors to the Respondents. Since the workers concerned did not accept, they can have no grievance now. Be that as it may, the persons whose services have been terminated on closure of a unit cannot claim re-employment as observed by the Supreme Court in the above decisions.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned, award dated 6.8.83 is quashed. No order as to costs.