TATA OIL MILLS CO LTD Vs. WORKMEN OF THE KANNITTA ESTABLISHMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management impugns the findings in Ext. P-2 award of the 4th respondent Industrial Tribunal, so far as it concerns Issue No. 1 referred to the said Tribunal. THE said issue reads: " (1) THE seasonal closure of the copra purchase depot, Alleppey. " THE finding thereon, entered by the Tribunal is that: "this action of the Management can never be considered to be just and reasonable and can never be accepted as one of the managerial functions". On that basis, the Tribunal passed an award directing that, "the management shall grant them (workmen) continuity of service from the date of their entry into service". THE Tribunal, also, by Ext. P2 award declared that, "the Management is not entitled to close their establishment at alleppey intermittently as they have been doing in the past", and on that basis further directed that the Management "shall not impose the so-called seasonal closure with effect from the date of this award till they get the decision of the Government to that effect".

(2.) EXT. P-3 produced along with this writ petition shows that the Management used to close down the Copra Purchasing Depot at Alleppey intermittently. It will be advantageous to extract EXT. P-3 herein: "statement showing the periods during which the kannitta functioned and remained closed each year from 1962 onwards. Table:1 It is such intermittent closing that led to the reference of the issue to the Industrial Tribunal. Discussing that issue the Tribunal found that, as a matter of fact there had been closures during certain months in the year. According to the Tribunal such closure by the Management was on the plea that it was a seasonal closure. The Tribunal took the view that 'copra cannot be considered as a seasonal business at Alleppey. ' In support of the aforesaid view, the Tribunal relied on the fact that several other kanittas in alleppey are working throughout the year. On that basis the Tribunal was of the view that the closure as aforesaid by the Management was a deliberate act purposely done with the ulterior motive of defeating the rights of the workers. On that basis and taking into account the fact that the workmen could not be entitled to wages during the period the depot is closed, it held that the closure of the concern intermittently was quite unjustifiable and opposed to natural justice. The Tribunal did not accept the reasons put forward by the management for the intermittent closures, in so far as in its view such reasons were not genuine or true. However, the Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, the management is closing the concern intermittently, though according to the tribunal, it was at the Management's will and pleasure. The Tribunal did not accept the Management's contention that it is within their right to close down the depot intermittently. In passing the award, the Tribunal appears to have been influenced by the fact that it will be a travesty of justice on the part of the management to close down the depot, throwing out the workmen without employment for months together in an year.

(3.) THE Tribunal has taken the view that the establishment at Alleppey is not of a seasonal character and thereafter proceeded to hold that the intermittent closure every year by the management of their depot at alleppey was unjust and unreasonable. On this point, it should be noticed, that where the factum of closure is admitted or established, it is not for the tribunal to go into the question as to the motive of the management to close down the establishment. This is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Workmen, Straw Board Mfg. Co. v. Management (1974 (1) LLJ. 499); Kalinga tubes v. THEir Workmen (1969 (1) LLJ. 557); Indian Hume Pipe Co. v. THEir workmen 1969 (1) LLJ. 242); and Andhra Prabha Ltd. V. Madras Union of journalists (1968 (1) LLJ. 15) as also the unreported decision of that court in workers of Pudukkottah Textile Mills v. Management (judgment in Civil Appeal no. 1005 of 1963) referred to and followed in Kalinga Tubes v. THEir Workmen (1969 (1) LLJ. 557 ). In the first of the decisions referred to above Workmen, straw Board Mfg. Co. v. Management (1974 (1) LLJ. 499) the Supreme Court pointed out as follows: "the workmen cannot question the motive of the closure once closure has taken place in fact. THE matter may be different if under the guise of closure the establishment is being carried on in some shape or form or at a different place and the closure is only a ruse or pretence. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that there is closure of an undertaking, the motive of the employer ordinarily ceases to be relevant. No employer can be compelled to carry on his business if he chooses to close it in truth and reality for reasons of his own. " In Indian Hume Pipe Co. v. THEir Workmen (1969 (1) LLJ. 242) also the Supreme Court said that: ". . . Once the tribunal finds that an employer has closed its factory as a matter of fact it is not concerned to go to into the question as to the motive which guided him and to come to a conclusion that because of the previous history of the dispute between the employer and the employees the closure was not justified. " It was further pointed out in that decision that, "such a closure cannot give rise to an industrial dispute". To the same effect is the other decision in the same volume of the Journal Kalinga Tubes v. THEir. Workmen (1969 (1) LLJ. 557 ). After referring to the decision of the court in Workers of Pudukkottah Textile Mills v. Management (Civil Appeal No. 1005 of 1963) the Supreme Court said as follows therein: "the discussion of the above decisions yields the result that the entire set of circumstances and facts have to be taken into account while endeavouring to find out if, in fact, there has been a closure and the tribunal or the court is not confined to any particular set of facts or circumstances. In one case the management may decide to close down an undertaking because of financial or purely business reasons. In another case it may decide in favour of closure when faced with a situation in which it is considered either dangerous or hazardous from the point of view of the safety of the administrative staff or members of the management or even the employees themselves to carry on the business. THE essence of the matter, therefore, is the factum of closure by whatever reasons motived. "