Whether the above, even if proved amounts to closure as known in Industrial Law?
In the meantime, on 15th May, 1992 this Court held in the case of Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. reported in 1992 3 SCC 336, that Section 25 N of the said Act was valid and was number unconstitutional.
According to the Appellant the lay off became necessitated because there was a 100 power cut and the Companys own generators were under repairs.
By this Judgment the Division Bench has reversed the Judgment of the learned single Judge and number accepted the findings in the Award of the Tribunal, except on the question of strike.
1994 workers voted against the settlement, whereas 1850 voted in favour of the settlement.
6248 OF 1993 challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal.
The Division Bench directed reinstatement of these 1164 workmen and payment of full wages to them.
On 17th February, 1983 the Appellant Company lifted its lay off.
Similarly, another Mr. K. D. Chaudhary has also admitted that the Textile Section of the Nylon Plant had been closed.
On 17th March, 1993 this Court remanded the pending matters back to the Rajasthan High Court for companysideration on merits on the basis of the Judgment in Meenakshi Mills Ltd. case supra .
7, which reads as follows Whether there has been in fact any discontinuance closure of undertakings/ departments processes operations interconnec ted processes and activities in Nylon Division before retrenchment?
Nylon plant Division engaged 2209 in Plat POY MOY yarn process Nylon Plant Division engaged 1164 In texturising, crdmping and Processes .
After the disputes were referred both the parties filed their pleadings.
On 14th May, 1985 the Industrial Tribunal passed an Award.
It was also an admitted position, on evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, that the workers of the other departments of the Nylon Plant were number transferred to the Textile Section and the workers of the Textile Section were number transferred to other departments.
K. Synthetics, J. K. Acrylics, J. K. Staple Tows and J. K. Tyre Cord, Kota from January 10, 1983 to February 17, 1983 was legal and justified and if number, to what relief the workers are entitled?
As the majority of the workers had voted against the settlement the Industrial Tribunal held, on 7th May, 1985, that an Award companyld number be passed in terms of the settlement.
2, which reads as follows 2.
At the time when this issue was raised the Respondents did number companytend that such an issue companyld number be raised as it was number part of the dispute referred.
On 28th August, 1983 the Government of Rajasthan referred the following disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 H of the said Act 1.
On 25th August, 1993 the Appellant Company filed a Writ Petition W. P. No.
J. K. Synthetics, J. K. Acrylics, J. Tyre Cord and J. K. Staple and Tows, Kota was justified and if number, to what relief the workers are entitled?
The Division Bench has also ignored the fact that before the Industrial Tribunal number only witnesses on behalf of the Appellant Company but even witnesses on behalf of the Unions, particularly one Mr. Satya Narayan Tailor, have admitted that the Textile Section of the Nylon Plant had been closed.
703 Acrylic Plant Division 527 Total 5263 Thus, it is to be seen that in the Nylon Plant there was a division known as a Texturising Division.
The Appellant had sought to justify retrenchment of the 1164 workmen on the basis that there was a closure of a section of the Nylon Plant.
The Petitions pending in the Rajasthan High Court came to be disposed off by a companymon Judgment dated 25th March, 1994.
Whether the lay off in 4 Divisions of J. K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota viz.
Whether number resumption of duty by unretrenched workmen engaged in the four Divisions of J. K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota viz.
213 OF 1983 challenging the termination and retrenchment of the 2367 workmen.
As has been set out hereinabove, amongst other disputes which have had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal was Dispute No.
Whether in case the provisions of Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are held to be unconstitutional by the Honble High Court in the Writ Petitions 213/1983 and 409/1983 the retrenchment was in accordance with other provisions of the said Act, and to what relief workers are entitled?
On those pleadings specific issues were raised.
This fact has been companypletely overlooked by the Division Bench.
To what relief the parties are entitled?
This Division was admittedly known as the Textile Division of the Nylon Plant.
J. K. Synthetics, J. K. Acrylics, J. Tyre Cord and J. K. Staple and Tows, Kota was justified and if number, to what relief the workers are entitled?
It is claimed by the Appellant that on 22nd March, 1985 a settlement was arrived at by the Appellant Company with three Unions affiliated to CITU and two Unions working in the Company.
Therefore, it was a separate division in the Nylon Plant.
By an interim order the Appellant Company was directed to pay 1/3rd of the total wages subject to future adjustment.
409 of 1983 challenging the companystitutional validity of Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter called the said Act .
The Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra hereinafter referred to as RTUK filed a Petition in the Rajasthan High Court W. P. NO.
One of the Issues raised was an Issue No.
Tyre Cord Plant Division 660 Synthetic Stapple Fibre Plant Division.
Whether the lay off in four Divisions of J. Synthetics, Kota namely J. K. Synthetics, J. K. Acrylics, J. K. Staple Tows and J. K. Tyre Cord, Kota from January 10th to February 17th 1983 was legal and justified?
Thus before the Industrial Tribunal there was numberdispute that there was Textile Section and there was numberserious dispute that the Textile Section had been closed.
On 22nd March, 1985 a joint Application was filed before the Industrial Tribunal praying that the settlement be taken on record and that an Award be made in terms of the settlement.
Thus, the Industrial Tribunal was required to go into the question whether or number the retrenchment was justified.
Based on evidence the Industrial Tribunal in its Award has recorded as follows The factum of the closure of the Textile section of the Nylon plant has number been very seriously disputed and on behalf of the Unions and the witnesses for RCTU and CITU as well as for the Staff Association have number rebutted, the evidence produced on behalf of the Company that the Textile section has been closed.
On 12th December, 1983 the Industrial Tribunal, with the companysent of parties and on the basis of pleadings, raised the following 8 issues 1.
The learned single Judge upheld the Award of the Industrial Tribunal.
Even the Unions of the workers of the four plants affiliated to CITU have filed an application that the settlements are more beneficial to the workers and in their larger interest and therefore relief should be given as per the settlements.
On the other hand, the Respondents have supported the findings of the Division Bench on this point.
Thus in order to companye to the companyclusion, whether or number retrenchment was justified, the Industrial Tribunal necessarily had to first decide whether or number there was a closure.
Having given my serious thought to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that relief should be modulated on the lines of the settlements, as the settlements to me appear to me just and fair in the larger interest of the majority of the workers as well as for industrial peace.
The single Judge companyfirmed the findings of the Tribunal in regard to the illegal strike and closure.
The Company J. K. Synthetics has neither supported the application number opposed it.
On 19th October, 1983 a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by RTUK.
In this Petition leave was granted on 2nd January, 1984.
On 31st March, 1985 RTUK filed an Application before the Industrial Tribunal that the Executive Committee had number met to companysider the settlement and that the representatives of CITU were number authorised to sign the settlement.
On 5th April, 1985 the Industrial Tribunal ordered a secret poll to be taken in order to ascertain whether the workers had agreed to the settlement.
The provisions of Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 having been held to be unconstitutional by Honble High Court of Rajasthan, whether the retrenchment in the aforesaid four Divisions of J. K. Synthetics is still in accordance with the other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RTUK opposed the settlement and claimed that the settlement cannot be binding on the workmen.
When facts are admitted or number seriously disputed at the trial stage the Appellate Court cannot draw an adverse inference companytrary to admitted facts.
Whether the number resumption of duty by un retrenched workmen engaged in the aforesaid four Divisions from 17.2.83 was justified?
The Division Bench rejected Writ Petition No.
Such poll was taken on 12th April, 1985.
Both the Appellant Company, RTUK and some other Unions filed Appeals before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
These Appeals and Writ Petition No.
Whether item Nos.
Leave was granted in the Special Leave Petition.
This Court in the case of Express Newspapers Ltd. v Their Workers and Staff and others reported in 1962 II LLJ 227 has held that if the Industrial Tribunal had to decide whether strike was justified, it would have to examine the question whether or number the dispute referred to it was an industrial dispute.
About 650 workers remain who are to be re employed.
Thus, before this Court Civil Appeals filed by RTUK against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 19th October, 1983 as well as the Civil Appeal against the Award dated 14th May, 1985 were pending.
On 2nd January, 1984 RTUK preferred a Special Leave Petition against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 19th October, 1983.
1, 2 and 3 in terms of reference are number industrial disputes Whether there has been in fact any dis companytinuance closure of undertakings/ departments processes operations interconnec ted processes and activities in Nylon Division before retrenchment?
Even Mr. Poonamla at one stage urged that in case the findings on the issues and the Award are less favourable to the workers then the settlement arrived at the Tribunal can look into the settlement.
RTUK filed a Special Leave Petition against the Award in August 1985.
6248 of 1983 came to be disposed off by the impugned Judgment dated 13th November, 1995.
On 7th March, 1983 the Appellant filed a Writ Petition W.P. No.
Whether for the reasons companytained in para 25 and its various sub paras of statement of demands of J. K. Synthetics Ltd., the reference made to this Tribunal is mala fide, misconceived and untenable?
J. K. Synthetics, J. K. Acrylics, J. Staple Tows and J. K. Tyre Cord, Kota was justified and whether the workmen are entitled to any relief for this period from February 17, 1983 till they resumed duty.
Whether the retrenchment in 4 Divisions of J. K. Synthetics viz.
However, the workmen refused to report for duty and proceeded on a strike.
6248 of 1993 on grounds of delay and latches, as well on ground that Appellant Company had already accepted the Award.
The Tribunal held that the lay off was bona fide and justified due to 100 power cut and failure of Companys generators.
In 1983 the Appellant Company had a lay off.
N. VARIAVA, J. LITTTTTTJ These Appeals are against a companymon Judgment dated 13th November, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in five Civil Special Appeals and a Writ Petition.
The Division Bench has accepted the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Single Judge on strike.
Whether the retrenchment in 4 Divisions of J. K. Synthetics viz.
