- (1.) Petitioners have filed present writ petition, requesting therein for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari by calling record of the case and get the notice dated 01.05.2000 quashed and further commanding the respondents not to give effect to the closure of Industrial Establishment with effect from 3rd May, 2001.
(2.) Brief facts, as mentioned in writ petitions, are that petitioners had been performing and discharging duties with Sherani Industrial Syndicate Ltd. South Road, Allahabad. 471 workmen, including petitioners, had been issued identical notice, which is subject matter of challenge in both the above writ petitions, mentioning therein that consequent to the closure of Battery Unit with effect from 3rd May, 2001, services of all the employees, including the incumbents whose names have been mentioned, have been terminated with effect from 3rd May, 2001, by giving one months salary in lieu of notice and towards closure compensation, 15 days salary for per completed year of service, which were paid by cheque. At this juncture present writ petitions have been filed, contending therein that said closure is in violation of Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and its non-compliance results in declaration of notice as illegal and closure itself as illegal.
(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been contended that Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was enacted by the State of U.P. vide Act No. 26 of 1983, which was enforced with effect from 3rd August, 1983, whereas Section 25O of the Central Act was made effective with effect from 21.08.1994, and the incorporation of Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had received Presidential assent. Section 6-W was struck down by this Court on 28.03.1990 in the case of Jay Shree Tea case, 1990 F.L.R. 603. Appeal was filed against the same with no interim order and said appeal had been allowed by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Textiles Ltd. v. State of Orissa, on 17.01.2002, and thus between 28.03.1990 and 17.01.2002, the provision itself was not there, as per which company could have made application for closure and therefore, there was no need for seeking permission for closure, as in the present case factory was closed on 3rd May, 2001. It has been further mentioned that petitioners have alternative remedy to raise industrial dispute, and further the respondent-establishment has already floated Voluntary Retirement Scheme before closure and various workmen have taken V.R.S. under the same scheme and further it has been stated that even after closure various workmen approached for more compensation and their request was acceded to and all those workmen were given compensation equivalent to 45 days salary for each completed year of service, which was much more higher than the closure compensation. Details of settlement by most of the petitioners have been given and it has been stated that except for petitioner Nos. 7, 13, 25 and 27, rest of the petitioners have accepted closure compensation and reason for this has also been disclosed as the closure compensation was more than the V.R.S. amount. Similar statement of facts has been mentioned in respect of petitioner Nos. 8 and 10 of writ petition No. 34732 of 2001.;