S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner through this petition has come forward to challenge the order dated 15.2.1985, by means of which the State Government has refused to allow the application of the petitioner to close down the unit. An application dated 19.12.1984 was moved under section 6 -W(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short the 'Act') through its chairman. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of manufacturing synthetic fabrics. The registered office of the petitioner -company is situated at Modinagar, U.P. The present unit prior to 31.8.1983 was a unit of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Limited. Thereafter, present unit assumed independent establishment and was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Limited. However, the mill was working only to 40% of its capacity in the near past. A new union namely, Kapra Mill Mazdoor Union coming into existence in the year 1979 as against the Indian National Trade Union Congress and it tried to gain strength by indulging into all sorts of subversive activities including the violence on account of inter -union rivalries and resorting to illegal strike. Finding the situation beyond control, the management decided to declare lockout for about two months in the year 1980 -81. It is, thereafter that the Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited entered into agreement with the Kapra Mill Mazdoor Union i.e. respondent No. 5 on 25.6.1981 followed by another agreement on 14 10.1982 in terms of which a wage increase to the tune of Rs. 115/ - was given to each worker in addition to the increase in index in Dearness Allowance. In return the aforesaid union assured to increase the production by observing discipline in the mill. But on account of low production and poor quality of output heavy losses were incurred and consequently the borrowings not only from the internal resources of the company, but also from the outside agencies such as financial institutions etc. increased. On account of the aforesaid increase in losses borrowings of the petitioner -company was increased to Rs. 1.16 crores in 1983 -84 The inter -union rivalries resulted in frequent and intermittent stoppage of work, illegal strike, acts of sabotage, obstructions of the movement of raw materials and finished goods, issuance of threats, endangering life and property and physical assault of supervisors and managerial staff. Between July, 1983 and April, 1984 there were as many as 20 incidents of murder committed by the employees belonging to rival unions and there were approximately 30 incidents of assaults with armed weapons leading to serious injuries. On account of the aforesaid unwarranted situation, which was beyond control the losses of the unit increased heavily i.e. to the tune of Rs. 876.64 lacs. On 9.10.1983 all the workers of the petitioner -company went on illegal strike without any notice and prior to the aforesaid strike hardly 395 workers were attending their duties in various shifts against the minimum requirement of 744 workers and those attending the duties were also not very serious in performing their duties. The management found that it was impossible to run the mill and so all the four shifts of the mill were combined into two shifts. An appeal was made to the workmen by displaying notices on the mill gates and through publication in the newspapers to call off the illegal strike and to report back on duty. Thereafter, when the workmen did not turn up fresh appointments were made in order to continue with the running of mill. The aforesaid efforts resulted in increase of the production, but in spite of that losses of the company increased from Rs. 10 lacs per month to Rs. 235 lacs per month in September, 1984. Again the workers went on strike on 9.7.1984. Thereafter, notices were issued and appeals were made to the striking workers informing that the strike was illegal. It was also found that various letters were written to the labour authorities and when the labour authorities visited the factory premises of the petitioner -company it was found that at the time of shift changes, gates of the factory were open yet the workers were not reporting for duty. Thereafter, labour authorities informed the petitioner -company that in a meeting of the representatives of All India Workers' Federation held on 11.9.1983, representatives of the Workers' Federation passed a resolution, wherein they agreed to refrain from violent activities. The illegal strike in fact commenced from 9.7.1984 and thereafter continued unabated. The petitioner -company moved a representation on 19.12.1984 addressing to the State. Government in terms of section 6 -W of the Act stating therein that it proposed to close down the petitioner -company w.e.f. 22.3.1985 for reasons explained in the accompanying documents to the said application and permission was sought to close down the said mill. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 15.2.1985, inter alia, on the grounds mentioned therein. Hence this petition.
(2.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of various serious efforts being made by the petitioner -company no fruitful result could be achieved and the losses of the company accumulated and increased continuously. Efforts were made by the petitioner to curtail the losses by making fresh appointments and also rescheduling the shifts, but on account of criminal and subversive activities of Kapra Mill Mazdoor Union the workers were not able to work of their own freewill. There were 20 incidents of murder and 30 incidents of criminal assaults and on account of inter se rivalry the situation was very terrible and there was no certainty of the workers and many workers did not come to work on account of the aforesaid criminal activities of the labour union. He has further submitted that the State Government did not appreciate the matter in a correct perspective and has failed to take into consideration the grounds propounded by the petitioner -company that heavy losses were accumulated on account of the labour unrest and further that an atmosphere of chaos and terror was created by the labour union on account of which supervisory staff and managerial staff were unable to discharge their duties fearlessly and further the workers, who were employed in the company were also not feeling safe and the dates and evidence produced on record have also not been considered by the State Government in the manner it was required. It is also submitted that the machinery of the mill was too old and revival of the mill is not possible now and moreover the mill, which is lying closed since 1983 will require a revamp by heavy investment and no useful purpose will be served by upholding the order of the State Government. It is also submitted that in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 8891 of 1994 one of the case in respect of Modi Cloth Mills, Ghaziabad Unit of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., Modinagar, Ghaziabad through its Manager and Occupier v. State of U.P. and others the order passed by the State Government has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the State Government vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2006. The aforesaid mill is the parent unit of the petitioner -company and the State Government after reconsidering the matter has allowed closure of the said unit. The petitioner's case is squarely on parity with the aforesaid unit and, therefore, submission has been made that the matter may be remitted to the State Government for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law by considering the relevant evidence and material on record, which has been ignored without any reasonable justification. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following decisions: Modi Cloth Mill,, 2006 (109) FLR 242 (All.) Orissa Textiles & Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others,, 2002 (92) FLR 648 (SC) Excel Wear v. Union of India,, 1978 (37) FLR 314 (SC) Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Case,, 1992 (65) FLR 1 (SC) ACC Limited case,, 1989 (1) LLJ 559 and BPMEL Employees Union and others v. Union of India and others, 2001 LIC 3628. Counsel for the opposite party No. 5, Sri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that the grounds put forth before the State Government were not sufficient for allowing the closure and the imaginary figures were submitted by the petitioner to have an edge in respect of his cause of action for closing down the unit. The petitioner has a remedy of review before the State Government and at the same time the matter can be referred to the Industrial Tribunal as provided under the provisions of section 6 -W of the Act and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;