Nishita Mhatre, J. - (1.) The petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Pune dated 18.12.1995 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners. The petitioners were all employed with Respondent No.1 for about 2 or 3 years prior to the closure of the establishment of Respondent No.1 It appears that the respondent was not paying minimum wages to the petitioners and had not complied with various provisions of law in respect of providing attendance cards, contributing to ESI and Provident Fund, etc. The workmen filed complaint (ULP) No.312 of 1990 for redressal of their grievances. The complaint resulted in an agreement on 27.2.1992. The respondent agreed to pay minimum wages and issued attendance cards, ESI cards, letters of permanency, etc. to the workmen. The complaint was withdrawn and the workmen resumed work with the respondent. All the terms of the settlement were complied with by the respondent. However, on 31.3.1992, a notice of closure was displayed on the notice board by the respondent, closing down the concern with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondent to close down the establishment, the petitioners preferred complaint (ULP) No.173 of 1992 under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court. This complaint was filed on 30.6.1992. It was contended in the complaint that the closure was illegal as the petitioners had been duped into signing the settlement of 27.2.1992 and immediately thereafter, within a month, the respondent decided to close down the concern. According to the petitioners, the respondent had violated the spirit of the agreement entered into by them with the respondent and, therefore they had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
(2.) The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint and in my view rightly after considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties. The Industrial Court has held that undisputedly the closure was effected on 31.3.1992. It has been observed rightly that whether a closure is sham or bogus cannot be considered by the Industrial Court and, therefore, the complaint has been dismissed.
(3.) It is now well settled that the motive of the employer for closing an undertaking cannot be questioned by the workmen or the union representing them. In M/s.Indian Hume Pipe Co. v/s. v/s. Their Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 1002, the Apex Court has held that once the Tribunal finds that the employer has closed down its factory as a matter of fact, the Tribunal cannot question the motives of the employer for his decision to close the factory. It is only if there is an illegal and unjustified closure that such a closure can be called in question. Admittedly, in the present case, there were only 7 workmen employed with the respondent. Thus, neither the provisions of section 25-O nor the provisions of section 25FFA would be attracted while considering the legality of closure in the establishment. An employer who employs less than 50 workmen is entitled to close down his business on payment of compensation to the workmen as if they have been retrenched as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. The employees in the present case who were only 7 in number, could not have therefore called in question the motives of the employer to close down the concern nor could there be any legal challenge to such a closure as the employer had offered compensation to the workmen which was refused by them. Thus, the order of the Industrial Court impugned in this petition is confirmed and the petition stands dismissed.;