- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vijay Sinha, for the petitioners, Sri G. C. Gahrana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being finally decided. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the reference order dated 12th November, 1998, order dated 17th July, 2000, order dated 19th September, 2001 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and the award dated 27th September, 2002. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the dispute between the parties are; petitioner No. 1, M/s National Textile Corporation (U. P.) Limited, Kanpur is subsidiary corporation of National Textile Corporation, New Delhi created under Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. National Textile Corporation (U. P.) is a Central Government under taking and is holding company of National Textile Corporation, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2, Raibareilly Textile Mills, is one of the subsidiary of petitioner No. 1. The National Textile Corporation (U. P.) Limited has been declared sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 10th March, 1993. With effect from 28th February, 1997 the production has been completely stopped by petitioner No. 2. In February, 1997 petitioner No. 2 effected layoff of its 354 employees. The State Government vide reference order dated 12th November, 1998 made a reference under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. on which Adjudication Case No. 147 of 1998 was registered. The reference was to the effect as to whether the action of the employers in laying-off their 354 employees with effect from 28th February, 1997, which is continuing till today, was valid or not and if not to what relief the workmen are entitled. The workmen filed their written statement and management also filed its written statement. The management in its written statement took specific plea that the State of U. P. is not the appropriate Government for making a reference and the appropriate Government competent to make reference is Central Government. A prayer was made by the management that the reference be rejected as without jurisdiction. In the written statement of the management it was also stated that Raibareilly Textile is a Government of India public sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is under the control of the Central Government. Relying on the judgment of apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 S. C. 645, it was stated that reference by the State Government was without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal passed order dated 17th July, 2000 holding the reference maintainable. THE management filed an application for reviewing the order dated 17th July, 2000 which application too was rejected by the order dated 28th August, 2001/19th September, 2001. Management also filed another written statement stating that 295 employees have already taken voluntary retirement out of 354 employees, hence no dispute is left. THE award was reserved. THE management claims that a settlement has been entered with the workmen represented by Naim Akhtar, Secretary of the Union to the effect that workers will not press the reference since the matter has already been settled and voluntary retirement has already been taken. Application and affidavit is said to have been given to the Industrial Tribunal. THE Industrial Tribunal, however, before the applications were submitted, prepared the award on 27th September, 2002 and sent the same to the State Government which award was published on 16th June, 2003. THE Industrial Tribunal vide its award held the layoff as illegal. THE Industrial Tribunal gave award that workmen are entitled to all the benefit with effect from 28th February, 1997 till their resignations were accepted. THE award dated 27th September, 2002 has been challenged by the management in this writ petition. Sri V. B. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, in support of the writ petition raised following submissions: (i) The reference by the State Government under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. was without jurisdiction since the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the Central Government. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the apex Court dated 8th July, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 3659 of 2002, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. & another v. Hindustan Aero. Canteen K. Sangh & others, and on judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2003 (96) FLR 1146, Suti Mills Mazdoor Union and another v. Union of India and others. (ii) 295 workmen out of 354 have already accepted the VRS by submitting declaration that they shall not claim any payment from management other than those admissible under the VRS. The submission is that after accepting the VRS any claim regarding layoff could not have been pressed and the Industrial Tribunal committed error in allowing the application of layoff. Reliance has been placed on judgment of apex Court reported in (2003)5 S. C. C. 163, A. K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others. (iii) The Industrial Tribunal erred in observing that declaration of the workmen that they will not claim any other amount except the amount under the VRS is, against the public policy.;