MAYA PRESS PRIVATE LTD Vs. DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-30
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 11,2003

MAYA PRESS PRIVATE LTD Appellant
VERSUS
DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Sri S. N. Verma assisted by Sri P. K. Mukherji for petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal for contesting respondents.
(2.)THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the show-cause notice dated 23-12-2000 and 30-12-2000 (Annexures-2 and 5 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner were called upon by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U. P. Allahabad to appear before him for resolving industrial unrest/industrial dispute arisen between petitioner and its workmen on account of the closure of the establishment on 23-12- 2000.
Entertaining the writ petition, on the strength of decision of this Court in Jayshree Tea Limited v. Industrial Tribunal (I), Allahabad, annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the judgment in Indian Oxygen Shramik Sangh v. Additional Labour Commissioner, 1992 (65) FLR 961, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, this Court vide its order dated 22-2-2001 while issuing notice stayed further proceedings initiated on the basis of impugned notice dated 30-12-2000 and 23-12-2000. The interim order has been extended from time to time.

When the matter was taken up on 23-1-2003, it was pointed out to this Court that the view taken by the decision of this Court to the effect that the provisions of Section 6 (W) of the U. P. . Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for prior permission are unconstitutional, has not been approved by the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court has held in M/s. Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others, JT 2002 (1) SC 160, that its earlier judgment in Excel Wear's case was not properly appreciated and that the principles laid down in Meenakshi Mills case will apply. In substance it was held that provisions of Section 6 (W) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which are pari materia to Section 25 (O) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, are not violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India,1950 and thus the employer can close industrial establishment without seeking the permission of the State Government.

(3.)AFTER the aforesaid order, the Counsel for petitioner Shri J. Nagar sought permission and was permitted to withdraw from the case, and has been substituted by Sri P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate. Sri S. N. Verma, Senior Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Electro Steel Castings Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 651, in submitting that provisions of Section 6 (W) are not applicable to establishment where there are more than 300 workmen. Sri K. P. Agarwal appearing for workmen submits that the said matter was argued by him, and that relevant provisions of law were not considered and which were left to be pointed out at that stage.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by petitioner, stating that during the pendency of writ petition, some of the workmen approached Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in which the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad has allowed the application with the direction that the applicant-workmen concerned are entitled to three months pay as closure compensation and three months notice pay from the employers and further 10% interest if the amount has not been paid within three months. The order appears to have been passed after notice but without benefit of appearance on behalf of the employers, who after some adjournments, absented from proceedings.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.