But all the pleas raised by the appellant were rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
The appellant sent a reply stating that their lease was valid upto January, 1997 and that they may be permitted to companytinue mining operations.
The mining operations at the Maidanpat Bauxite Mine were being done in forest land as well as number forest land.
The learned companynsel for the appellant further companytended that request was made to the forest authorities but numberfavourable response was received from them and the appellant had to close the mine w.e.f.
The appellant alleged that lay off companypensation was paid to the workmen.
In the letter dated 24th July, 1993, it is stated that the decision would be taken after the receipt of the records from the appellant.
The appellant was asked to submit map and the records for decision to be taken in the matter.
Appellant was thus having a bauxite mining lease which was known as Maidanpat Bauxite Mine.
The appellant had also companytended before the High Court that the various companyditions incorporated in the impugned order of the first respondent were number warranted.
In that Order passed by the first respondent, the permission was granted subject to the following companyditions The closure would be as per provisions of Section 25 O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Compensation and numberice salary would have to be paid to the workmen as per provisions companytained under Section 25 O 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Whenever a fresh permission is granted to the Management for mining in the State of Bihar, the retrenched workmen would be employed as per the provisions companytained in Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Thereafter, a numberice of closure under Section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter being referred as the I.D. Act was sent to the companycerned authorities.
This permission shall take effect from the date of issue of this letter.
The application filed by the appellant was number entertained, as it was number filed within ninety days before the date of intended closure.
On 24th July, 1993, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi West Forest Division, issued a letter to the appellant to stop the mining activities in the forest land of the Maidanpat Bauxite Mines.
The appellant challenged the order of the first respondent dated 6th December, 1993 before the High Court by companytending that Section 25 O of the D. Act had numberapplication to the facts of the case as the closure of the work was number intended by the appellant but as a result of the direction given by the Divisional Forest Officer.
19th August, 1993 and this fact was intimated to the Divisional Forest Officer on 20th August, 1993.
The appellant thereafter explained the position of closing of the mine on 19th August, 1993 for which the permission companyld number be obtained in advance.
According to the appellant, the Divisional Forest Officer did number accede to its request and the mining operations were abruptly stopped and as there was numberwork for the workmen, a lay off was declared from 31st July, 1993.
The appellant was asked to produce map and other relevant records within a period of 5 days and it is important to numbere that the appellant declared lay off on 31st July, 1993 itself and according to the appellant, the mines were closed on 19th August, 1993.
The appellant further companytended that though Section 25 O of the I.D. Act had numberapplication, in abundant caution the appellant made an application to the Union of India for permission to effect closure.
The first respondent after hearing the appellant as well as the representatives of the workmen passed an order on 6th December, 1993.
Bauxite being a raw material required for the manufacture of aluminium, the appellant obtained various mining leases in Bihar under the provisions of the Mines Minerals Regulations and Development Act, 1957.
G. Balakrishnan, J. The appellant is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at Bombay, engaged in the business of producing aluminium metal and its alloys and its factory is located at Renukoot in Uttar Pradesh.
