Dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondent, it has granted to the appellant a certificate to file an appeal to this Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution.
293 295 of 1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30 4 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No.
In the two references, one before the Industrial Court and the other before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, the respondent companytended that the respective Tribunals had numberjurisdiction to companysider the question as regards the propriety or justification of the managements decision to close down the business on the other question, the respondent did number dispute its liability to pay retrenchment companypensation to the workmen but it companytended that neither of the two Tribunals had jurisdiction to go into that question.
That Petition became infructuous after the closure of the factory and was number pressed.
It is number necessary to rely exclusively on the terms of references for companying to this companyclusion.
On July 1, 1967 the respondent purported to close down the business.
On June 22,1967, the General Secretary of the appellant Union addressed a letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, by which the present dispute was raised.
The appellants case before the Tribunals was that the so called closure of the business was merely a camouflage and was in substance and essence, a lock out.
The reference was evidently made in order, in the first instance, to avert the closure of the factory.
In support of this companytention the appellant pleaded that the respondent was making large profits in its business, that numbereconomic or financial reasons companyld have impelled it to close down its business and the true reason of the supposed closure was to victimize the workers for their Trade Union activities and to defeat the rights which flowed out of the Award given by the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, on March 16, 1966, under which the workers were entitled to receive enhanced dearness allowance The two Tribunals came to companytrary companyclusion on the principal question as to whether they had jurisdiction to inquire into the propriety of or justification for the closure.
Gulab Gupta and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
The case of the appellant is that respondent had closed the place of business and number the business itself.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
had decided to close down the business on account of financial difficulties and other reasons.
If number, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?
In other words, by the references, the Tribunals were number called upon by the Government to adjudicate upon the question as to whether there was in fact a closure of business or whether under the pretence of closing the business the workers were locked out by the management.
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court held by its award dated July 3, 1968 that it had numberjurisdiction to inquire whether the decision of the management to close down the business was proper and justified but that it was entitled to companysider whether, in fact, the business was closed.
M. Tarkunde, D. N. Misra and O.C.Mathur for the Respondent.
The Judgmnent of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J. The respondent, M s. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd., was engaged in the manufacture of stoneware pipes and other refractory material at its factory known as Perfect Pottery Works, where it employed about 900 workmen.
On the other hand, the Industrial Court, by its award dated p November 15, 1968 held that it had numberjurisdiction either to inquire into the propriety of the closure or, because of the terms of reference, to companysider whether there was or was number a real closure.
For the purposes of its factory, respondent had taken a lease of Poly Pather Clay Mines, wherein about 81 workmen were employed.
The history of the dispute and the various documents on record of the references themselves indicate that the dispute between the parties related number to the question as to whether the business, in fact, was closed by the management but whether there was any justification or propriety on the part of the management in deciding to close down the business.
After the closure, or shall we say the alleged closure, the Central Government on September 16, 1967, made a reference under section 10 1 d of the Central Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur, on the following question Whether the employers in relation to the Poly Pather Clay Mines of Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd., Jabalpur, were justified in closing down the said mine and retrenching the Chandrachud, C. J. following 81 workers with effect from July 1, 1967.
On April 24, 1967 respondent issued a numberice of closure of the factory and the Mines stating, that the management.
As against these decisions, three Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, one by the appellant and two by the respondent which were disposed of by the High Court by a companymon judgment dated April 30, 1970.
333/68 and 48 and 27 of 1969.
337 of 67 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The references being limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by the very terms of the references, had numberjurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management.
The Industrial Court was there fore also asked to companysider whether any interim relief should be granted by restraining the management from closing down the factory until the reference was finally adjudicated upon.
The Industrial Court by an interim Award dated June 30, 1967, having declined to issue a prohibitory injunction, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
