IOL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition and the connected writ petition have been filed against the recovery certificate dated 19-1-91 issued by the Addl. Labour Commissioner. Kanpur Region, Kanpur (Annexure 20 to the writ petition). I have heard Shri S. N. Varma, Shri P. K. Mukherjee and Shri Prem Chandra, learned counsels for this petitioner and Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is a company which had a factory at Kanpur. An industrial dispute was raised under 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. THE reference order is quoted in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. This reference was decided by an Award of the Industrial Tribunal (III). U. P. Kanpur on 27-7-81 in Adj. case no. 15 of 1977. A true copy of the Award has been annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition, against this award, the workmen went to S.L.P. to the Hon. Supreme Court which delivered its judgment on 2-5-85 and partly modified the said Award. A true copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure 2 to this writ petition THEreafter, the workmen filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court alleging that the Award was not implemented and the Supreme Court disposed of the petition by an order dated 27-1-86 (annexure 3 to this petition. By this order, the Supreme Court observed that the workmen should move before the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act THEreafter, an application under section 33-C (2) was moved by the workmen before the Labour Court and it was decided by an order dated 28-2-87. THE petitioner company challenged this order in writ petition no. 7325 of 1987 but the writ petition was dismissed on 24-10-89 by thus Court vide Annexure 6 to this writ petition THE petitioner company then filed S.L P. in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court THE Supreme Court passed an order with the consent of the parties that Mr. Justice Chinnapa Reddy (retd.) be appointed to decide the question of implementation of the Award and the parties agreed to act accordingly. Mr. Justice Chinnapa Reddy by his; award upheld the order of the Labour Court (IIO, Kanpur under section 33-C (2). A true copy of his Award has been annexed as Annexure 7 to tins writ petition. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the implementation of the said Award. the petitioner company could not continue its functioning due to financial difficulties and decided to close down the operations of its Kanpur factory on 10-1-91, vide (Annexure 9 this writ petition).

(3.) IN my opinion, therefore, the impugned recovery under section 6-H (1) was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and it is hereby quashed. It is. however, open to the workmen to apply under section 6-H (2) or section 33-C (2) or any other provision under which they can legally claim