9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment and/or the Textile Corporation has no power, authority or jurisdiction to impose conditions in the impugned agreement dated 31-8-1996, and the Industrial Court has had no jurisdiction to pass the award on the basis of such an agreement. The thrust of the petition, therefore, is that the agreement as well as the award are illegal, unconstitutional and without any legal effect whatsoever. 3. By a draft amendment moved, the constitutional validity of sections 66, 78(1)(A)(C ), 95, 113, 115A read with item No. (7)(i) of Schedule III to the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, is also challenged on the grounds that those provisions are inconsistent with and repugnant to the provisions of section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and further being violative of articles 14, 21 and 254 of the Constitution of India. The further prayer, therefore, is to restrain the respondents from enforcing and implementing the agreement dated 31-8-1996, and the award dated 3-9-1996, and from taking any action there under. 4. Tersely put, the case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a Manch, formed by several Central trade unions, like, INTUC, AITUC, GITU, GSTC Officers' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dinance was subsequently enacted as an Act, known as the Textile Mills (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, with two objects, viz. (i)To ensure maintenance of production of cloth; and (ii)To protect the workmen employed in textile mills. After taking over 15 textile mills, several textile mills were restarted by the first respondent-Corporation, but as the affairs of those units were not properly managed, it resulted into heavy loss. According to the petitioners, a reference was, therefore, made to the Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction ('the BIFR') and the BIFR ordered winding up of those mills. It is claimed in the petition that there are about 17,000 workmen presently employed by the first respondent-Corporation in various mills owned and managed by it and as and when the textile mills are to be closed, it would seriously prejudice the rights of those employees. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have challenged the vires of section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, by filing a separate petition, being Special Civil Application No. 6837 of 1996, which is pending. 6. To make the challenges in this petition good, Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tlement was entered into between the workmen and the third respondent-textile Labour Association, which is otherwise valid and legal and which finally culminated in an award. He, therefore, canvassed that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. B.R. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 association, also supported the impugned action and relying upon the affidavit of Mr. Joshi, Legal Incharge and Executive Member of the Association, submitted that considering the overall circumstances, the action taken is more beneficial to the workmen and there is no scope for questioning the scheme envisaged, which culminated into an award. He urged that the agreement was voluntary, lawful and what is more, equitable to the workmen. 8. In opposing the petition, Mr. Shelat the learned additional advocate general, submitted that a stage had come, where the Government was forced to prevent huge financial loss year by year. According to him, the financial burden was unbearable as far as the State of Gujarat is concerned and, therefore, the settlement has been fairly reached. He says that more than 90 per cent of the workmen agreed and that is how the package deal has been arri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court required to enter into larger questions. It was strongly contended that the settlement had been arrived at between the Corporation and the association, which was accepted by a majority of the workmen. The said settlement was produced before the Industrial Court, which made an award on the basis of the settlement and which cannot be now brushed aside. In the light of those facts, it is urged that there is no scope to invoke the provisions of section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the action amounts to retrenchment. It was contended that whether or not section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act is a special or general legislation is not necessary to be decided as it pales into a mere academic issue and, therefore, such a question does not arise and the question of the court expressing any opinion on the same equally does not arise. 9. In any case, it was pointed out that the submission that section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act is a special legislation, whereas the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the Companies Act, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, are general legislations is ill-founded. It was forcefully contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made and the third respondent-association was requested to arrive at an appropriate settlement so that the workers get terminal benefits at the earliest. The Government also agreed to such a formula and as a special measure, and in the light of the directive principles of State policy, a package deal was brought into existence, under which various benefits are granted to the workmen. The assertion of the third respondent that in case of ordinary closure in accordance with law, it was doubtful whether employees would get such benefits, which they are now getting under the settlement, which has become the award of the Industrial Court seems to be justified as there are innumerable cases where workers do not get their terminal benefits for years and years and for decades. A chart is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, pointing out as to how the employees are availing of benefits. It is also suggested and to some extent, justifiably, that those workmen were not entitled to all such benefits. The State of Gujarat thought it fit to grant some additional benefits with a view to minimise the hardship of the workmen. 12. It is otherwise common ground that out of about 14,000 workers more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the rehabilitation scheme is prepared only with that object in mind and, therefore, it was clearly incumbent on the respondents to run the so- called sick undertakings. He, therefore, says that the respondents cannot be permitted to close down the mills under the excuse that the units were and are running in losses and that the BIFR had passed an order of winding up the companies. Considering the facts and figures, we are, however, of the view that the action of the respondent authorities cannot be termed either arbitrary or unreasonable. On the contrary, we are satisfied that in spite of efforts made, the units could not be revived. It is common ground that majority of the mills were already lying closed and the State Government was made to pay idle wages to the workmen. The units could not be revived and the loss incurred by the Corporation accumulated day-by-day, running into crores of rupees. When proceedings under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Act were initiated, the Board has taken the view that there is no alternative but to wind up the units. Needless to say, the decision of the Board is that of an expert body. Ordinarily, a decision of such a bod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss in an appropriate forum, as advised. The fact, however, remains that under clause (11) of the settlement and award, dated 31-8-1996, 3-9-1996, it was made a condition that those workers who want to resign to get the benefit under the award, must do so on or before 12-9-1996. Indeed this petition was instituted prior to that date. We did not grant interim relief, making it clear that at the time of final hearing, appropriate equitable relief could be considered even in the event the petition is to be dismissed. It may be possible that some of the workers may yet opt for the package deal. We have, therefore, no difficulty in directing respondent No. 1-Corporation to accept resignations until 10-12-1996, and afford to such workers the benefit under the award in the event they so choose and in no event, the benefit shall be denied to them if they come forward with their applications on or before 10-12-1996. This position will also be available to those who had applied but have so far not accepted the payment under the award.
14. For the foregoing reasons and subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
