- (1.) THE petitioner M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. has challenged the order dated 18th February, 2000 passed by the Ministry of Labour, Central Government. New Delhi in purported exercise of power under Clause (d) of Sub -section (1) and Sub -section (2 -A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. referring the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Dhanbad.
(2.) THE petitioners rase, inter alia, is that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. constituted a committee called Chelliah Committee, which submitted report in 1993 and recommended that the petitioner -Company should take further measure to improve its cost effectiveness by closing down uneconomical underground mines in the Eastern sector. It is stated that the scope of substantive increase in the indigenous production appears to be limited due to depleting ore resources and poor quality of ore inspite of certain measures taken by the petitioner for expansion and modernisation to increase domestic production. The company also took furl her measure to improve its cost effectiveness by closing down uneconomical underground mines in the Eastern sector. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government policy and scheme the petitioner sought for permission to close down Musaboni mines since 1997 under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (in short the Act) and the Government of India, after following the procedure, passed final order on 1st October, 1997 and granted permission for closing down the mines. The petitioners further case is that the respondent No. 3, namely, Copper Kamgar Union, raised an industrial dispute on 26.2.1999 on the ground that the petitioner -company is contemplating to close its mines, namely, Pathargora and Kendadih. On receipt of such dispute the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). Government of India, Ministry of Labour, issued notices to the parties for conciliation. Pursuant to that notice the petitioner submitted its reply justifying its decision to close down the aforementioned two mines. It is stated that the conciliation proceeding ended in failure and consequently petitioner - company filed an ap - plication under Section 25O of the said Act for permission to close down the Pathargora and Kendadih mines. The Director. Ministry of Labour, heard the representatives of the management and the union and finally passed order dated 23rd December. 1999 under Section 25O of the Act granting permission for closure of the two mines subject to certain terms and conditions. The petitioners further case is that after final order was passed under Section 25O of the Act the respondents had no authority or Jurisdiction to entertain a dispute and refer the same for adjudication in purported exercise of power under Section 10 of the said Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 5, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, it is stated that even if an order granting permission under Section 25O was taken by the appropriate Government, the issues distantly connected with it could be the subject matter of the dispute. It is stated that the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd, has closed their mines before obtaining permission of the Government under the aforesaid provision. and the issue referred for adjudication is only as to whether the action of the petitioner in suspending production of mineral in August, 1999 in Pathargora and Kondadih Mines amounts to closure of mines. The other related issue was regarding denial of financial dues to the miners. Respondents further case is that if the petitioners had closed their mines before the permission granted to them under Section 25O, then it is certainly a matter of industrial dispute and, therefore, Government has rightly referred the issue for adjudication under Section 10 of the said Act.
(3.) THE separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 namely the Copper. Kamgar Union and Musabani Mines Labour Union respectively. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, it is stated that granting permission under Section 25O of the Act by the appropriate Government is not connected with the dispute referred for adjudication. It is further stated that the terms of reference is not for deciding the dispute as to whether permission granted under Section 25O of the Act by the appropriate Government is legal and proper rather it is connected with the industrial dispute between the parties so raised by the Union.;