H P MINERAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1994-12-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on December 06,1994

H P Mineral And Industrial Development Corporation Employees Union Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT U P AT GHAZLABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1997-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
LAL MOHAMMAD VS. INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2002-5-107] [REFERRED TO]
LAL MOHAMMAD VS. INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1998-12-66] [DISTINGUISHED]
MARUTI UDYOG LTD VS. RAM LAL [LAWS(SC)-2005-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
ENGINEERING PRODUCTS INDIA LTD VS. DANDAPANI MAHARANA [LAWS(PAT)-1998-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
SURAT SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD NISHAD VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
J P GUPTA VS. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-121] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SARWAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-133] [REFERRED TO]
J.K. RAYON VS. LABOUR COURT KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-336] [REFERRED TO]
J.K. RAYON VS. LABOUR COURT KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-353] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-420] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High court of Himachal Pradesh dated 16/3/1992 dismissing the writ petition (CWP no. 980 of 1985 filed by the appellant-Union and allowing the writ petition (CWP No. 650 of 1995 filed by the Himachal Pradesh Wool Processors Ltd. , respondent 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Company"). The petitioners in both the said writ petitions were assailing the award dated 7/7/198585, made by the Industrial tribunal, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal").
(2.)The H. P. Wool Processors Ltd. was incorporated as a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 in 1974 and it started production sometime in January 1976. It was a subsidiary of the H. P. Mineral and Industrial development Corporation and was wholly managed and controlled by the government of Himachal Pradesh. It did not turn out to be a viable undertaking and it continued to suffer losses from year to year. The Board of Directors of the respondent-Company, therefore, in the meeting held on 6/8/1983, decided to close the undertaking. On the same date it was also decided that the State government may be moved for waiving the notice of 60 days required to be given under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By order dated 9/8/1983 the State government granted exemption from complying with the provisions of Section 25-FFA of the Act. Thereafter, on 10/8/1983, the respondent-Company issued an order for the closure of the undertaking with effect from 13/8/1983 and terminated the services of all the employees barring those necessary to maintain a minimum of administrative functions. The workmen were paid one month's pay in lieu of notice, closure compensation, gratuity, amount in lieu of leave due and earned wages due to them. The appellant-Union, representing the workmen of the respondent-Company whose services were terminated, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the tribunal by the government of Himachal Pradesh. The tribunal by its Award dated 7/7/1985 held that section 25-N of the Act was attracted which required three months' notice to begiven before retrenchment and since only one month's wages in lieu of notice were paid, the tribunal directed that the workmen be paid wages for two months.
(3.)Feeling aggrieved by the said Award writ petitions were filed in the High court by the appellant-Union as well as by the respondent-Company. The High court has observed that Section 25-0 of the Act which provided for the procedure for closure of an undertaking had been struck down by this court in its decision Excel Wear v. Union of India and the amended provisions of section 25-O, which were introduced by Act 46 of 1982, came into force on 28/8/1984 and were not in operation on the day of the closure of the industry and that the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act had been held to be unconstitutional by the High courts of Madras and Rajasthan in K. V. Rajendran v. Deputy Commr. of Labour and J. K. Synthetics v. Union of India. The High court has held that the workmen could not invoke the protection of either of these two provisions and that the only protection that was available to them was that contained in S. 25-FFA and 25-FFF of the Act and that the said provisions had been complied with by the respondent-Company. On that view of the matter, the High court felt that no relief could be granted to the workmen. The High court, therefore, set aside the Award of the tribunal insofar as it awarded two months' wages to the workmen and held that the workmen were not entitled to any relief.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.