9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and justification of the closure of two units of the appellant-Mill. 2. Adequacy of the evidence provided by both parties. 3. Validity of the Industrial Tribunal's findings. 4. Impact of the BIFR proceedings on the closure. 5. Reliefs and compensation for affected workers. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Justification of the Closure: The appellant-Mill sought permission to close two units due to significant financial losses and operational unviability. The Industrial Tribunal initially granted this permission, which was later set aside by a single judge. The Tribunal found the reasons for closure genuine and adequate, noting the appellant-Mill's accumulated losses and inability to continue operations profitably. The High Court, upon appeal, reinstated the Tribunal's decision, recognizing the closure as a bona fide and necessary step due to the financial crisis. 2. Adequacy of the Evidence Provided: The appellant-Mill presented extensive evidence, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, and oral testimonies from key personnel, to substantiate its financial difficulties. The respondent-Union, on the other hand, admitted to many of the adverse conditions but attributed them to mismanagement by the Mill. However, the Union failed to provide concrete evidence to support these claims. The High Court found that the Union did not discharge its burden of proof, and the appellant-Mill's evidence was deemed sufficient. 3. Validity of the Industrial Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal's findings were based on substantial evidence, including the financial statements and testimonies. It concluded that the closure was justified due to the severe financial losses and the impracticality of continuing operations. The High Court upheld these findings, stating that the Tribunal's decision was supported by adequate evidence and was not arbitrary or unreasonable. 4. Impact of the BIFR Proceedings: The BIFR had declared the appellant-Mill as a sick company and sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme that included the closure of the two units. The AAIFR upheld this scheme, recognizing the non-viability of the units and the necessity of closure for the overall rehabilitation of the company. The High Court noted that the BIFR's findings and the subsequent implementation of the rehabilitation scheme made the resumption of operations impractical, further justifying the closure. 5. Reliefs and Compensation for Affected Workers: The High Court directed the appellant-Mill to offer compensation to the workers who did not opt for VRS, including 36 days' salary for each year of service, gratuity, leave allowances, ex-gratia payment, and salary from July 2003 to March 2004 with interest. This offer was made to ensure that the workers receive benefits similar to those who opted for VRS. The workers were given 45 days to accept this offer, failing which they would only be entitled to statutory closure compensation under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the single judge's order and restored the Industrial Tribunal's decision, allowing the closure of the two units. The appellant-Mill was directed to provide enhanced compensation to the affected workers, ensuring a fair settlement while acknowledging the financial realities necessitating the closure. The BIFR's rehabilitation scheme and its implementation played a crucial role in affirming the closure's legality and necessity.
|
