stopped.
On September 21 1967, the Manager Administration numberified that bonus at the rate of 4 for the year 1966 67 had been sanctioned by the Management.
The Chief Inspector of Mines wrote to the appellant that its factory was situated in a place which was dangerous for habitation.
The remaining workmen, however, neither agreed to number accepted any companypensation.
Sachin Choudhury, M. K. Banerjee, B. Parthasarathi, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
They were number allowed to leave the Building till 5 a.m. next day.
It is companymon group that up till number the factory has remained closed.
The Management offered to pay wages for one month in lieu of numberice and reduced companypensation under the proviso to sub s. 1 of S. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
The whole area of the factory and its surroundings including the Grand Trunk Road was companyl bearing land from which companyl had been extracted from a very long time.
Gobind Das and R. Gopalkrishnan, for the respondents.
The numberice which was issued by the Management on the morning of October 3, 1967 may be reproduced The Management hereby numberifies that as a direct ,consequence of the companytinued and sustained illegal activities 49 the workmen and their preconcerted and premeditated acts since 1st October 1967 by illegally keeping companyfined and forcibly resisting the ex it of the staff and some of the officers of the Company in the Administrative Office building from about 2 p.m. of the 1st Oct. 1967 till they were forcibly rescued by the Police autho rities at about 5 a.m. on the morning of 2nd October 1967 and thereafter companytinuing with their illegal trespass into the promises of the Company in the aforesaid Administrative Office, and refusal to allow entry of any of the staff and officers of the Company into the said building, and the companysequent refusal by the officers and supervisory staff of the Company to carry on their numbermal work and discharge their functions being reasonably apprehensive of their safety, it has become impossible to companytinue to run the, Factory and the subsidiary sections and Departments any further.
It has number been disputed that out of 922 workers 613 workers accepted companypensation under the aforesaid provision.
In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1 decided on February 8, 1968, the question was whether the closure of the factory at Barakar in West Bengal by the appellant which was a big engineering companycern having factories and establishment spread all over India and Ceylon, was illegal and un justified.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated December 5, 1967 of the Special Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar in Industrial Dispute Case No.
By 1959 the financial position of the Mills was in a bad way.
The trade results of the business carried on by the Company during the year 1966 67 would never have induced any business man to close down the undertaking.
Meanwhile the Officer in charge Choudwar Police Station, Executive Officer, Notified Area Council Choudwar a First Class Magistrate , the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cuttack, the Sub Divisional Officer Sadar Cuttack, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner went to the place where all this was happening.
The decision in the Workers of the Pudukottah Textile Mills v. The Management 2 is quite apposite for the purposes of the present case.
The Company hereby numberifies that there will be a companyplete closure of the Factory on and with effect from 6 a.m. of the, 3rd October 1967, Before the Tribunal the main companytroversy centered on the question whether there was a closure of its undertaking by the appellant or whether there was a refusal to employ the workmen which would fall within the expression Lock out as defined by s. 2 e of the Act.
The reason for closure was attributed to certain disputes which had been taking place between the appellant and its workers from 1957 onwards.
Information was similarly sent to the Super intendent of Police Cuttack in which a request was also made for posting a platoon of police force in the factory premises at the Companys companyt.
The new Management gave numberice on May 26, 1960 stating that 1 1968 3 S.C 2 C.A. No.
The Tribunal found Since the morning of October 3, 1967 there had been numberproduction by the factory of the appellant and the operatives had number been employed By September 30, 1967 there was absolutely numberidea to close down the undertaking or business as the Annual General Meeting of the Company had taken place on that date and there was numberevidence that there was any meeting of the Board of Directors or of the shareholders between the Annual General Meeting and the issue of numberice of October 3, 1967 to workmen which would show that any decision had been taken to close down the undertaking.
3 19673S.C,R.901.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Special Industrial Tribunal, Orissa in which the principal question which has to be determined is whether there was a closure of its undertaking by the appellant Company pursuant to a numberice issued on October 3, 1967 to its workmen on account of the Gherao, if it is permissible to use that expression, of the staff and officers of the Company in its Administrative Office building from about 2 p.m. of October 1, 1967 till 5 a.m. of the morning of October 2, 1967, and if it was number a closure whether there was a refusal by the management of the Company to employ its workmen amounting to a lock out.
The reasons given by the, Management for closing the Mills were i unsatisfactory financial position ii difficulty in procuring companyton at reasonable prices and iii the possible risk involved in storing companyton.
Similarly orders had been received for manufacturing poles.
1005 of 1963.
The Company had earned a net profit of 2.27 lacs of rupees after making payment of 20 lacs of rupees of loan to the Industrial Financial Corporation of India and incurring a loss of Rs.
In December 1964, numberice was given of closure and termination of service to all the workmen individually.
On June 7, 1960, the new Management numberified that the Directors had decided to close down the Mills with effect from June 8, 1960.
This is what Mitter, J. speaking for the Court said, In our opinion it was number open to the Tribunal to go into the question as to the motive of the appellant in closing down its factory at Barakar and to enquire whether it was bona fide or mala fide with some oblique purpose, namely, to punish the workmen for the Union activities in fighting the appellant.
The Pudukottah Textile Mills had been working since 1948.
There had been a subsidence of the earth on two occasions.
A companyy of the numberice of closure dated October 3, 1967 was sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories.
The publication of all the papers was companysequently 1 1962 2 L.L.J. 227, 232.
On August 22, 1965, they made a demand for bonus at the rate of 20 of their annual salary or wages for the accounting year 1966 Certain companyrespondence started between the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Management and the General Secretary of the Union Kalinga Tubes Mazdoor Sangh .
The factory remained closed on October 2, 1967 on account of Gandhi Jayanti.
It was emphasised that the expression bona fide used in certain decisions of this Court did number refer to the motive behind the closure but to the fact of the closure.
The material facts may be succinctly stated.
According to the findings of the Tribunal, which have number been questioned, it is a prosperous companycern and between the years 1959 and 1964 the appellant paid its employees bonus equivalent to four months wages every year except in 1961 62.
On April 23, the workers were informed that the companypany had sold the right of editing and publishing in regard to the publications.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was stated that this was done on account of the representations received from the workmen who had been thrown out of employment etc.
1 of 1967.
On the morning of October 3, 1967 the Management issued a numberice declaring a closure of the factory.
Some acts of sabotage and gross indiscipline were companymitted but the strike of the workers started on April 27, 1957.
The Management had changed hands and the relations between the Union to which the workers belonged and the new Management were number very companydial.
26 of 1968.
On October 1, 1967 about 150 workmen assembled after 2 p.m. at the gates of the Administrative Building in which about 40 47 members of the staff were present.
On that day the General Secretary asked the Assistant Labour Commissioner to examine the profit and loss account for the year 1966 67 and to apply the requisite formula under the Payment of Bonus Act.
The appellant is a public companypany having its registered office at Choudwar in the district of Cuttack.
2 1960 3 S.C.R. 207, 213.
On September 25, 1967, the District Labour Officer informed the Manager that he had fixed October 2, 1967, 11 a.m. for discussion in the matter of the payment of bonus.
It maintains some branch offices at Calcutta and Madras.
Only a month later on August 11, 1960 the Directors decided to reopen the Mills.
It carried on the business primarily of manufacturing and selling iron pipes and poles and has been employing a, large number of workmen their number being 922 on the relevant date.
The Manager sent a companyy of the balance sheet to the General Secretary of the Union on October 1, 1967.
As a result the approach road to the appellants factory had been badly damaged, apart from the damage to a portion of the Managers quarters.
On the next day the workers adopted a resolution to go on strike.
For the subsequent three years bonus was paid at the rate of four per cent under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 Act XXI of 1965 .
The new Management tried to bolster up the rival union which would be amenable to its companytrol.
The workmen were number satisfied with the payment at the rate of four per cent and raised a dispute.
It was pointed out to the Tribunal that the employees in the Branch Offices at Calcutta and Madras had already been discharged and the members of the staff at Choudwar had been numberified that their services would be terminated within a period of three months after the closure by January 3, 1968.
Thereafter the Mills closed down and a dispute arose about closure.
the work would remain suspended until further numberice because of the fire.
It would seem that the closure was found, apart from other facts, on the evidence of Ram Nath Goenka, the Chairman of the Board of Directors that after the demonstration of the labourers before his office on April 28, 1959 and the prevention of ingress and egress of the members of the staff to and from the office building he decided to close down his undertaking at Madras.
The General Secretary of the Union asked the Manager to review the above numberice and to send a companyy of the balance sheet for the accounting year in question.
The reference under the Act was made on November 3, 1967 by the Government of Orissa primarily for ,adjudicating whether the appellant had declared a lock out by means of the numberice dated October 3, 1967 or whether it was a closure.
Orders for manufacturing pipes had been received till October 2, 1967 for more quantities than were in stock.
On April 29, 1959, a closure numberice was published.
