SIEMENS LTD. Vs. SHENDRA SIEMENS KAMGAR/KARMACHARI SANGHATANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

(2.) By this petition, Petitioner challenges award dtd. 2/11/2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad in Reference (IT) No. 08 of 2014. By that award, the Industrial Tribunal has held that more than 100 employees in workman category were working in petitioner company and that therefore, provisions of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "I. D. Act") are applicable. The Industrial Tribunal has therefore declared that closure notice dtd. 27/9/2014 is illegal and consequently the termination of the employees has been set aside. Petitioner is directed to pay wages to the members of the respondent union from the date of closure with continuity of service.

(3.) It was Petitioner's case before the Tribunal that it had employed only 99 employees in the workman category and that therefore, due to lesser strength than 100 employees, the company was not required to seek prior permission for closure under the provisions of Sec. 25-O of the I. D. Act. Petitioner contended that it had complied with the provisions of Sec. 25FF and 25-FFF of the I. D. Act. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondent before the Tribunal that the company had more than 100 employees in workmen category and, therefore, closure in absence of prior permission mandated U/Sec. 25-O of the I. D. Act rendered the same ab-initio void. Therefore, the issue before the Tribunal was whether the company had 100 employees in workman category or not.