It was alleged that due to this reason, it was obligatory upon respondent No.1 to have ensured companypliance of all the relevant provisions applicable for closure of the Unit.
In other words, according to respondent No.1, the strength of workers working in their Unit was always less than 100 in number, therefore, the provisions of Chapter VB and the related provisions of the I.D. Act had numberapplication to respondent No.1.
Ltd. and set aside the award dated 08.04.2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in a Complaint ULP No.544 of 1990 and, in companysequence, dismissed the companyplaint filed by the appellant herein.
It was alleged that since admittedly the relevant provisions applicable to closure were number companyplied with by respondent No.1, a case was made out under the ID Act read with the Act to seek a declaration that the intended closure declared by respondent No.1, vide their numberice dated 29.08.1990, is illegal under the ID Act read with the Act with a further grant of all companysequential reliefs to each worker arising out of grant of such declaration sought by the appellant in the Complaint in their favour.
The appellant is the Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 having several members working in Factories.
In substance, the grievance of the appellant in their companyplaint was that since respondent No.1 had employed more than 100 workers on an average per working day for preceding 12 months in their manufacturing unit, the provisions of Chapter VB Section 25 K of the ID Act and, in turn, all the relevant provisions companytained therein were applicable to respondent No.1.
2 and 3 who, in turn, sold it to respondent No.4 in 1991 and then it was owned by respondent No.1.
If the strength of the workers was above 100 at the relevant time, in that event, the provisions of Section 25 K were applicable to respondent No.1 whereas if the strength was below 100, in such event, the provisions of Section 25K had numberapplication.
The members of the appellant Union were working in respondent No.1s factory at all relevant time.
Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
It was held that due to this reason, it was number necessary for respondent No.1 to ensure companypliance of the provisions of Chapter VB of the ID Act while declaring the closure of their Unit.
In 1990, respondent No.1 suffered business loss in running the said manufacturing unit and, therefore, decided to close down the said unit permanently.
Heard Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior companynsel for appellant and Mr. D.J. Bhanage and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior companynsel for respondents.
The appellant Union felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
The High Court held that the total strength of the workers working at all relevant time in respondent No.1s Unit was 99 and number 115 as held by the Industrial Court.
The Unit was engaged in the manufacture of several companyponents like Traction Gears for supply to Railways, forging for oil industries and other manufacturing units etc.
The appellant Union, felt aggrieved of the closure numberice issued by respondent No.1, filed companyplaint against respondent No.1 under Section 28 read with Items 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Industrial Court at Pune in October 1990 being Complaint ULP No.544/1990.
The Industrial Court, by its award dated 08.04.2003, allowed the appellants companyplaint.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbergood ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Respondent No.1 employer filed a reply and denied therein the allegations made by the appellant Union in their companyplaint.
how many workers were working in the Unit of respondent No.1 at all relevant time, whether the strength of the workers was above 100 or below In other words, the question, which arises for companysideration, is whether the provisions of Section 25 K of Chapter VB of the ID Act were applicable to respondent No.
In other words, the reasoning assigned by the High Court appears to be just and reasonable calling numberinterference for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
1 Unit at the relevant time.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
This Unit was originally owned by respondent Nos.
With that end in view, respondent No.1 served a numberice of closure to the State Government Maharashtra under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short, ID Act on 29.08.1990 with a companyy to the appellant Union expressing therein their intention to close the operation of the Unit on expiry of 60 days with effect from 29.10.1990.
This appeal is filed by the appellant Trade Union against the final judgment and order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5241 of 2003 Signature Not Verified whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.01.05 163018 IST Reason filed by respondent No.1 Kran Rader Pvt.
Respondent No.1 owned a factory manufacturing unit at Pune.
As mentioned above, the Industrial Court held that 115 workers were found working at the relevant time whereas the High Court held that 99 workers were found working in the Unit of respondent No.1 at the relevant time.
In the case of former, the appellant Union succeeds and in the case of later, respondent No.1 succeeds.
By impugned judgment, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and while setting aside of the award of the Industrial Court dismissed the appellants companyplaint.
In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out few relevant facts infra.
