The Workmen Represented by Blue Star Employees Union Jamshedpur Thr Its Gen Secretary MD Wahabuddin Vs the Management of Ms Blue Star Ltd. through Its Vice President Regional Manager

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(L) No. 3402 of 2013

The Workmen represented by Blue Star Employees’ Union, Jamshedpur through its General Secretary Md. Wahabuddin, Son of Late Md. Tauheed, resident of Kadama, P.O. & P.S.- Kadama, District- Singhbhum East. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Management of M/s Blue Star Ltd., Natraj Manson, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, District- Singhbhum East through its Vice President/Regional Manager, Eastern Region, Blue Star Ltd., 7, Hare Street, Calcutta-700001, Kolkata. … … Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Ragini Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate [Joined Online]

¶9

¶10

(Lastly heard on 13^th December, 2024)

¶11

17 /4^th February, 2025

¶12

1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶13

“For issuance of a writ of certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing/cancelling/rescinding the Award dated 21.05.2012 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case No.- 11 of 1999 and answering the reference against the petitioner Union.

¶14

AND/OR

¶15

For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/ direction(s)/ rule(s) in the fact and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.”

¶16

2. The terms of reference was as follows:-

¶17

“Whether to retrenchment of workmen name in Annexure K and announcement of closure of Blue Star Ltd; Jamshedpur on 8.9.1997 inspite of business is justified? If not, what relief concerned workmen are entitled to?”

¶18

3. The case of the workmen represented through their Union before the learned labour court was primarily that: -

¶19

a. M/s Blue Star Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) had its several units in different parts of India

¶20

1

¶21

including at Jamshedpur and the company was running for the purposes of repair, maintenance, sale and installation job and had a work shop at Rail View Building at Jugsalai, Jamshedpur and an office at Kadma, Jamshedpur. There was one Board of Director to manage the business activity of the company across the country and had one common profit and loss account and there was a policy to transfer employees found to be surplus to another location. It was alleged that the company adopted a negative attitude towards the union at Jamshedpur and dismissed two workmen namely Mr. Parthasarthy in 1997 and Mr. Murthy in 1990 and therefore they filed cases which was numbered as BS Case No. 09 of 1997 and BS Case No. 12 of 1990 respectively which were pending. Other cases which were pending were mentioned in the written statement as follows: -

¶22

Mr. D. A. Anthony filed reference Case No. 12 of 1986;

¶23

Mr. Murthy also filed a reference Case No. 05 of 1991.;

¶24

Mr. K. S. Jairam filed a Reference Case No. 01 of 1985 challenging his transfer and had also filed a complaint case as M.J. Case No. 01 of 1991;

¶25

and thus, there were number of litigations pending between the workmen and the company.

¶26

b. It was the case of the Union that the company adopted a policy of victimization and has been attempting to get work done through contract workers and taking advantage of a smaller number of workmen in the concerned unit issued a closure notice on 08.09.1997 and when the workmen went to join duty, they found the premises locked and they received a letter of closure of the unit dated 05.09.1997 and their services were terminated.

¶27

c. It was the further case of the Union that it also came to light that the company had introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 01.09.1997 for the workmen but the VRS was not

¶28

2

¶29

circulated as none of the workmen were found to be surplus and hence it was submitted that the concerned workmen were retrenched from the service of the company with malafide intention in the name of closure of the unit. They prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.

¶30

4. As per the written statement of the management, the following points were taken: -

¶31

i. The reference was not maintainable in view of the fact that there was complete closure of the unit from 08.09.1997 and after closure no industrial dispute was existing.

¶32

ii. The management was forced to close down the unit as the unit was not worthy of retaining economically and administratively and the services of the workmen stood terminated from 08.09.1997 due to closure.

¶33

iii. On account of closure the workmen were paid /offered one month’s wage in lieu of notice and were also paid compensation in terms of Section 25FFF of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 and the Management had also followed all the procedure laid down for closure of the establishment.

¶34

iv. It was their further case that the workmen had duly accepted the amount of compensation and also the bona fide regarding the closure of the unit at Jamshedpur.

¶35

v. Their specific case was that there was no retrenchment of any workmen, rather the closure was required for the company for its survival and the management had complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act with respect to the closure.

¶36

5. On the basis of pleadings, the following points were formulated for consideration: -

¶37

(i) Whether announcement of closure of Blue Star Limited, Jamshedpur on 8.9.1997 was justified?

¶38

3

¶39

(ii) Whether the concerned workmen were separated as per law? if not, what relief they were entitled to?

¶40

6. The learned Labour Court has decided both the issues in favour of the management and answered the reference in favour of the management.

¶41

Arguments of the Petitioner.

¶42

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the terms of reference and has submitted that a letter dated 09.09.1997 was an enclosure to the terms of reference. The said enclosure to the terms of reference has also been annexed along with the writ petition as contained in page No. 34 and he has referred to the statements made therein to submit that the Vice President of the respondentcompany was duly intimated that the required procedure was not followed by the management. He submits that one fine morning i.e. on 08^th September, 1997, the workmen found that the unit was locked.

¶43

8. He has submitted that through the letter it was intimated that the cheques/drafts which were offered by way of final dues/settlement were accepted by the employees on protest. A list of 11 workmen was mentioned in the said letter dated 09.09.1997. He has referred to the provisions of Sections 25 FFA, 25 FFF and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act to submit that if the closure is not as per law then the provisions of Section 25F are attracted and the employees who have been retrenched on account of closure are entitled to compensation in terms of Section 25F. The procedure for closure was not followed and accordingly it cannot be said that the unit was closed down as per law. For the purposes of closure of unit, the learned counsel has also relied upon Rule 76A, 76B and 78 of Bihar Industrial Dispute Rules to submit that the rules have force of law and the statutory procedure are required to be complied prior to closure.

¶44

9. He has further submitted that the case before the learned labour court was virtually without any evidence from the part of the management, inasmuch as, the management witness did not appear for

¶45

4

¶46

cross-examination. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned court has gone into the point that the compensation amount was accepted without protest and has passed the impugned award. The learned counsel has submitted that the protest was mentioned in the letter which was enclosed to the terms of reference.

¶47

10. He has also submitted that the respondent company had different units and in case one or the other unit had closed down the workman ought to have been adjusted in other units. Even such step was not taken and therefore, there has been violation of provisions of Sections 25F/25FFF/25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, the award passed by the learned labour court is fit to be set aside.

¶48

11. During the course of hearing, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the different date which is appearing in page No. 35 of the record, which is, 31.10.1998 although on the previous page the date of letter is mentioned as 09.09.1997. The learned senior counsel has submitted that he has no instructions with regard to the aforesaid mismatch in the date between page No. 34 and 35 of the writ petition. However, he submits that the fact that the amount was received under protest was raised by the workmen in paragraph 19 of the written statement. In paragraph 23 of the written statement filed by the workman, a plea was raised that the compensation paid was not in accordance with law and it fell sort of what was legally payable.

¶49

Arguments of the Respondent.

¶50

12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that altogether there were 11 workmen.

¶51

13. He has referred to paragraph 8 to 11 of the impugned award to submit that the learned court has taken the materials into consideration and has come to a conclusion that the compensation was received with free consent towards full and final settlement and thereafter, the workmen had left the company and consequently it was not a case of termination. He has submitted that the award passed by the learned

¶52

5

¶53

court does not call for any interference as finding have been arrived after considering the materials on record.

¶54

Findings of this Court.

¶55

14. The Sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are Sections 25F, 25 FFA and 25 FFF which are quoted as under: -

¶56

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—

¶57

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

¶58

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

¶59

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

¶60

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

¶61

25FFA. Sixty days’ notice to be given of intention to close down any undertaking .—(1) An employer who intends to close down an undertaking shall serve, at least sixty days before the date on which the intended closure is to become effective, a notice, in the prescribed manner, on the appropriate Government stating clearly the reasons for the intended closure of the undertaking:

¶62

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to—

¶63

(a) an undertaking in which—

¶64

(i) less than fifty workmen are employed, or

¶65

(ii) less than fifty workmen were employed on an average per working day in the preceding twelve months,

¶66

(b) an undertaking set up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or for other construction work or project.

¶67

6

¶68

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the undertaking or death of the employer or the like it is necessary so to do, by order, direct that provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to such undertaking for such period as may be specified in the order.

¶69

25FFF. Compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings . — (1) Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F, as if the workman had been retrenched:

¶70

Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of section 25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months.

¶71

Explanation. —An undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of—

¶72

(i) financial difficulties (including financial losses); or

¶73

(ii) accumulation of undisposed of stocks; or

¶74

(iii) the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it; or

¶75

(iv) in case where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on;

¶76

shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this subsection.

¶77

(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an undertaking engaged in mining operations is closed down ………………

¶78

(2) Where any undertaking set-up for the construction of buildings, bridges …………….

¶79

7

¶80

15. The rules which have been relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are Rules 76A, 76B and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules, 1961 framed under Industrial Disputes Act, which are quoted as under: -

¶81

76A. Notice of closure

¶82

If an employer intends to close down an undertaking, he shall give notice of such closure in Form Q to the State Government, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post.

¶83

76B. Notice of and application for permission for closure-

¶84

(1) Notice under sub-section (1) of Section 25-O of intended closure shall be given in Form QA and served on the State Government either personally or by registered post with acknowledgement due.

¶85

(2) Application for permission to close down an undertaking, under subsection (3) of Section 25-O shall be made in Form QB [with attested copy of the notice served by the employer under sub-section (1) of Section 25-FF-A appended thereto] and delivered to the State Government either personally or by registered post acknowledgement due and where the application is sent by registered post the date on which the same is delivered to the State Government shall be deemed to be the date on which the application is made for the purposes of sub-section (4) of the said section.

¶86

(3) The notice, or, as the case may be, the application shall be made in triplicate.

¶87

(4) The employer concerned shall furnish to the State Government to whom the notice of intended closure has been given or the application for permission to close down has been made such further information as that Government considers necessary, for arriving at a decision on the notice, or, as the case may, the application and calls for from such employer.

¶88

78. Notice of retrenchment

¶89

If any employer desires to retrench any workmen employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under him (hereinafter referred to as workmen in this rule and in Rules 79 and 80), he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to

¶90

8

¶91

the State Government [and Conciliation Officer of the area] and such notice shall be served on that Government by registered post in the following manner:

¶92

(a) where notice is given to the workman; notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman;

¶93

(b) where no notice is given to the workman; and he is paid one month's wages is lieu thereof, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which such wages are paid; and

¶94

(c) where retrenchment is carried out under an agreement

¶95

Provided further that in case of working journalists,

¶96

16. The form Q under Rule 76 A as appended to the aforesaid Bihar Rules is titled “form of Notice of closure to be given by an employer under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)” and is accordingly applicable to closure under Section 25 FFA of the Act of 1947. Section 25 FFA provides for 60 days’ notice but it is not applicable to undertakings in which less than 50 workmen are employed and admittedly, in the present case total workmen in the undertaking were 11 and accordingly neither Section 25 FFA nor rule 76A is applicable in the instant case.

¶97

Rule 76 B deals with notice under section 25-O of the Act of 1947 which in turn falls under Chapter V-B dealing with of the ‘special provisions relating to lay off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments’ and as per Section 25 K, chapter V-B is applicable to establishments having more than 100 employees in seasonal employment and Section 25-O falls under chapter V-B. Thus, Section 25-O and hence rule 76B also do not apply in the present case.

¶98

The form P under Rule 78 as appended to the aforesaid Bihar Rules is titled “form of Notice of retrenchment to be given by an employer under clause (c) Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)” and is accordingly the prescribed manner of notice to be issued under clause (c) Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The Rule 78 deals with both the situations, that is, (a) where notice is given to the

¶99

9

¶100

workman when the notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman and (b) where no notice is given to the workman and he is paid one month's wages is lieu thereof when the notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which such wages are paid.

¶101

17. In the present case, the closure is under section 25FFF and the employees are entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with provisions of Section 25F as if the workman has been retrenched but as per the proviso to section 25 FFF (1) where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of section 25-F, shall not exceed his average pay for three months. In the present case, no plea was taken by the workmen that they were not given the notice pay or were not given the compensation as per proviso to section 25 -FFF (1) or that the notice of closure was issued to the concerned authority as per section 25-F (c) read with Rule 78 of the Bihar rules. The issuance of notice as per Section 25-F (c) read with Rule 78 of the Bihar rules was never raised by the workmen before the learned labour court and essentially this is a matter of fact which cannot be raised for the first time in the writ court challenging the award. Rather, the workmen had challenged the closure itself by stating that the closure was by way of victimisation and malafide as the company was not willing to give the workers of the unit the benefit of VRS and the other units at Jamshedpur were operating and the company was taking work through contractors and their specific case was that they were not satisfied with the amount paid to them as a case relating to wage revision. It was also stated in the written statement filed by the workmen that a complaint was filed under Section 33A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the same was withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid findings, the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with regards to violation of Rules 76A, 76 B and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules, 1961 has no merit and hence rejected.

¶102

10

¶103

18. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 4 SCC 27 (S.M. Nilajkar & Others vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka) , the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act dealing with conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen, provision of Section 25FFF dealing with compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings and also the meaning of the term “undertaking” have been considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term “undertaking’ is not defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the relevant provision uses the term “industry” and it has been held that ‘undertaking’ is a concept narrower than ‘industry’ and further that an ‘undertaking’ may be a part of the whole i.e. the industry. It has been further held that the term “undertaking” carries a restricted meaning. In the said judgment, it has been held that the closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing down of an “undertaking” within the meaning of Section 25FFF and under such circumstances, the workmen would be entitled for compensation under Section 25F(b) and which shall not exceed his average pay for 3 months in view of Section 25FFF proviso. It has been held that in case of closure of undertaking for unavoidable circumstances, the workman would be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason whatsoever cannot be questioned and compliance with Section 25F shall be subject to such relaxations as are provided by Section 25FFF. It has been held that when the undertaking is closed on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation payable to the workman under clause (b) of Section 25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the earlier judgement passed under section 25F which led to amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and introduction of, interalia, Section 25 FFF. Paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: -

¶104

11

¶105

“ 16. It is pertinent to note that in Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla Vs. A.D. Divikar the Supreme Court held that “retrenchment” as defined in Section 2(oo) and as used in Section 25F has no wider meaning than the ordinary accepted connotation of the word, that is, discharge of surplus labour or staff by the employer for any reason whatsoever otherwise than by way of punishment inflicted in disciplinary action. Retrenchment was held to have no application where the services of all workmen were terminated by the employer on a real and bona fide closure of business or on the business or undertaking being taken over by another employer. The abovesaid view of the law taken by the Supreme Court resulted in promulgation of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1957 with effect from 27-4-1957, later on replaced by an Act of Parliament (Act 18 of 1957) with effect from 6-6-1957 whereby Section 25-FF and Section 25FFF were introduced in the body of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957. Section 25-FF deals with the case of transfer of undertakings with which we are not concerned. Section 25-FFF deals with closing down of undertakings. The term “undertaking” is not defined in the Act. The relevant provisions use the term “industry”. Undertaking is a concept narrower than industry. An undertaking may be a part of the whole, that is, the industry. It carries a restricted meaning. (see Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Workmen. With this amendment it is clear that closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing down of an undertaking within the meaning of Section 25-FFF. The workman would therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason whatsoever cannot be questioned. Compliance with Section 25-F shall be subject to such relaxations as are provided by Section 25-FFF. The undertaking having been closed on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, i.e. by its own force as it was designed and destined to have a limited life only, the compensation payable to the workman under clause (b) of Section 25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. This is so because of failure on the part of respondent employer to allege and prove that the

¶106

12

¶107

termination of employment fell within sub-Clause(bb) of Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act.”

¶108

19. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 10 SCC 727 (Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer & Anr.), the closure was for found to be bona fide reasons, but the concerned Labour Court held that the dispensation of the services of the workmen amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25F of the Act and as a result without giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof, the retrenchment was held to be bad in law and such award passed by the labour court was affirmed by the High Court. In the aforesaid background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as a consequence of the closure of the industry, Section 25F of the Act is not attracted and the rigour imposed thereunder stands excluded.

¶109

20. This Court finds that the proviso to Section 25FFF clearly mandates that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer [read with the exceptions carved out through the explanation] the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of Section 25-F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. The workmen are also required to be issued notice prior to retrenchment or are entitled to one month’s pay in lieu of notice.

¶110

21. This Court has gone through the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen and primarily the grievance of the workmen was that the closure was not bona fide; there were number of litigations pending; the retrenchment was by way of victimization and further that the business of the company was continuing within Jamshedpur having offices at different locations and also that the company decided to give Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) but no such option was given to the employees concerned in this case . It was also their case that since number of litigations were pending therefore the closure was in contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial

¶111

13

¶112

Disputes Act. It was also stated that the complaint filed under Section 33A of the Act as was being sought in the present case was also withdrawn. Their specific case was that the compensation paid was not in accordance with law and it fell sort of what was legally payable to them. In the entire written statement, no grievance was raised with regard to the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the required procedure for termination of the services of the concerned employee was not followed, inasmuch as, no termination notice was given, rather the termination notice was exhibited by the workmen as exhibit-5 and consequently no reference was made with respect to any provisions concerning the procedure for closure or notice for closure. It is further important to note that the workmen also did not disclose as to what was the compensation amount received by them. Rather their case was that their claim for wage revision was pending in another reference case. On the other hand, the specific case of the Management as per the written statement was that one month’s wage in lieu of notice and compensation payable as per Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act was paid. The workmen also could not produce any document to satisfy the labour court that the compensation/notice pay was received under protest as nothing was brought on record to show any protest at the time of receiving the amount of compensation.

¶113

22. On the basis of the materials on record, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur recorded its findings at Para-8, 9 and 10 of the impugned award which are summarised as under: -

¶114

a) On careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, it is undisputed fact in that the concerned workmen were the employees of M/S. Blue Star Ltd. Jamshedpur and the office of the company was at Straight Mile Road, BH Area, Kadma and a work shop at Rail View building, Station Road, Jugsalai at Jamshedpur and the management has closed the company at Jamshedpur unit by notice of closure w.e.

¶115

14

¶116

from 08.09.1997 and management has paid notice pay and compensation according to law to the concerned workmen.

¶117

b) The workmen have pleaded and stated that they have received the compensation amount after the closure of the company for their survival, but it has been received on protest. But the workmen have not been able to show any which paper on which basis, it can be said that they have received the amount on protest, and hence this fact indicates that they have received the compensation amount with free consent towards full and final settlement and left the company for ever and thus it is not a case of termination of service and the case is liable to be dismissed as they are no more workmen of the company.

¶118

c) Upon scrutiny of the materials on record the learned labour court held that the workmen have failed to establish that management is continuing its business at Jamshedpur unit after the closure of the company dated 8.9.1997 and hence it is crystal clear that the management has closed the company permanently w.e. from 8.9.1997.

¶119

d) The workmen failed to prove any malafide intention of the management, they also failed to prove that the business was being carried out through contractors and agents and also failed to prove that the company was making profits. The learned labour court upon scrutinising the materials placed on record held that permanent discontinuance of the business in the unit was with bonafide intention and the discontinuance of all the 11 workmen was on account of such closure and that the management had closed the business of the company at Jamshedpur as per the establish law and hence the announcement of closure of Blue Star Ltd, Jamshedpur on 8.9.1997 was held to be justified. Accordingly, the issue no. (i) as framed and quoted above was decided against the workmen and in favour of the management.

¶120

15

¶121

e) The learned labour court held that it was fact that after closure, company has paid the notice pay and compensation to the workmen as per the provision of section 25FFF of the I.D. Act and they had received the amount. The workmen stated in his evidence that company has paid them compensation, but in less amount, and it was not paid according to claimed wage revision, and for this wage revision, a reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. And thus, it was clear to the learned court that subject of wage revision was still sub-judice and hence in view of the learned court the concerned workmen were separated from the service of the company after full and final settlement as per the provision of law and therefore, the concerned workmen were discharged from the service of the company according to law. Accordingly, the issue no. (ii) as framed and quoted above was also decided against the workmen and in favour of the management.

¶122

23. This Court finds that the learned labour court has passed a wellreasoned award after considering the materials placed on record and merely because the management witness did not turn up for cross examination and that the award was practically without the evidence of the management has no bearing as the required documents/ materials/facts were placed on by the workmen including the closure notice and the witnesses of the workmen were also cross-examined by the management on the basis of which the learned labour court arrived at the findings recorded in the award.

¶123

24. The letter dated 09.09.1997, which was enclosed with the terms of reference, a typed copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition, only revealed that the concerned employees were being advised to receive their final dues under protest, but no document was produced before the learned court to show that the terminal amount was received under protest. The import of the letter dated 09.09.1997 has also been considered by the learned labour court while passing the

¶124

16

¶125

award and a specific finding has been recorded that no evidence was produced by the workmen that the compensation was received under protest and it has been held that the compensation was received with free consent towards full and final settlement. If the workmen claimed that they had accepted the compensation under protest, it was for them to prove the protest by adducing cogent evidence which they failed to do. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity in the matter of arriving at the aforesaid conclusions by the learned labour court. This Court also finds that the learned labour court recorded a conclusive finding that the workmen did not produce any document to show that they had received the compensation amount under protest. 25. The argument of the petitioner that the respondent company had different units and in case one or the other unit had closed down the workmen ought to have been adjusted in other units is devoid of any merits. In the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court wherein in the context of closure of “undertaking” under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it has been held that “undertaking” is a concept narrower than “industry” and an “undertaking” may be a part of the whole i.e. the industry. In the considered view of this court, the closure of an unit of the company at Jamshedpur would come within the meaning of closure of “undertaking” as understood under Section 25-FFF if other conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The closure of one unit of the industry is not linked to closure of the entire industry/company itself. Closure of a unit would be covered by closing down of an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Section 25FFF and under such circumstances, the workmen would be entitled for compensation under Section 25F(b) and which shall not exceed his average pay for 3 months in view of Section 25FFF proviso. This Court finds that in the present case, the closure has been held to be valid and was held to be for bona fide reasons after scrutiny of the materials placed on record by the workmen themselves and accordingly, the concerned workmen would

¶126

17

¶127

be entitled to compensation in terms of proviso to Section 25FFF, that is, under clause (b) of Section 25F which shall not exceed average pay for 3 months.

¶128

26. The law is well settled that the writ court does not sit in appeal against the award passed by the labour court and there is no question of any interfere in absence of any perversity or material irregularity while passing the award which may go to the root of the matter. There is no scope of reappreciating the materials on record and coming to a different finding under writ jurisdiction.

¶129

27. As a cumulative effective of the aforesaid findings, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶130

28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶131

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶132

Mukul/AFR

¶133

18

The Workmen Represented by Blue Star Employees Union Jamshedpur Thr Its Gen Secretary MD Wahabuddin v. the Management of Ms Blue Star Ltd. through Its Vice President Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Workmen Represented by Blue Star Employees Union Jamshedpur Thr Its Gen Secretary MD Wahabuddin v. the Management of Ms Blue Star Ltd. through Its Vice President Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmeshwar Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baidyanath Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagat Narayan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Idrish Ansari and Ors. Vs Mahammad Khurshid Ansari

Globe Roadways Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sri Tilak Raj Mangalam Vs Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman, Hinoo

Prem Kumar Mahato And Anr. Vs Pustam Mahato And Ors.