Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed by Gajraj Babunandan Varma (petitioner No.1) against M/s Igloo Cold Storage & Ors. (respondents) challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 30.9.1997 in Revision Application (ULP) No.33 of 1996. The Industrial Court had allowed the revision filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.635 of 1988. The complaint was filed by the Dyes & Chemical Workers Union on behalf of 8 workers, including the petitioner, alleging illegal termination from service with effect from 16.12.1988. The union claimed that a settlement was arrived at between the respondent and the union on 23.9.1988 regarding general demands. Three months later, the respondent displayed a notice of closure of its Ice Manufacturing Division with immediate effect, while the Cold Storage Division continued. The Labour Court held that the closure was not bona fide and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The Industrial Court in revision set aside that order. The High Court noted that the petition was initially not pressed by petitioner No.2 who had settled with the respondent, and the matter was restored after an LPA. The High Court found that the Industrial Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence. The Labour Court's finding that the closure was not bona fide was based on material on record, including the fact that the employer continued its other division and failed to prove financial distress. The High Court held that the termination was an unfair labour practice and restored the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination due to closure - Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 - The complaint alleged illegal termination of workmen following closure of one division of the employer. The Labour Court found the closure not bona fide and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The Industrial Court in revision set aside the order. The High Court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and that the Labour Court's finding of mala fide closure was based on material on record. The termination was held to be an unfair labour practice. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Industrial Court under M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court restored the Labour Court's order as the Industrial Court's interference was unjustified. (Paras 8-10) C) Industrial Law - Closure - Bona fides - Section 25FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer must prove that the closure was genuine and not a pretext to terminate workmen. The Labour Court's finding that the closure was not bona fide was upheld as the employer continued its other division and failed to show financial distress or other valid reasons. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner from service due to closure of the Ice Manufacturing Division of the respondent was legal and justified, and whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated 30.9.1997, and restored the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.635 of 1988 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Bona fide closure
- Section 25FFF Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Items 1(a)(b)(d)(f) Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Reinstatement with continuity and back wages
