9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company in liquidation. The appellant had filed the said claim before the Official Liquidator, after claims were called for in terms of rules 147 and 148(1) of the said Rules. The appellant filed his claim for Rs. 1,49,664, which according to the appellant, represents his unpaid wages from 1-7-1997 till 10-4-2001. 3. Shri Lobo, the learned amicus curiae, has firstly submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any grounds or reasons which were required to be stated in terms of rule 163 of the aforesaid Rules. I find that there is substance in the said submission of Shri Lobo. Rule 163 of the aforesaid Rules provides that the Official Liquidator will investigate the claims made and is required in writing to admit or reject th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the appellant that the settlement dated 9-4-2001, was not binding on the appellant and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for his salary/dues from 1-7-1997, which remained unpaid to him till the date of actual closure of the company, being April 10, 2001. Learned counsel contends that the said settlement has resulted in closure of the company and the mandate of law, which was required to be followed, was not followed in the case and it has resulted in retrenchment of workers. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Razaq, and in my view rightly, that the case of Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. ( supra ) is clearly distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts of the case at hand. Learned advocate, Ms. Raza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sult of which, the manufacturing activity came to a standstill. On 10-7-1997, the appellant came to be suspended. On 14-4-1998, the strike was withdrawn but the company imposed a lockout on the same day. It appears that prior to that, the company had made known to the union and its workmen about the financial position of the company and had invited them in its efforts for revival of the operations of the company, but the union and its workmen had expressed their inability to come forward with any proposal for revival of the operations of the company and that is the reason why the company declared a lockout on 14-4-1998. Subsequently, at the instance of the financial institutions, the said Board recommended that the company be wound up in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment dated 14-6-1996, took place as a result of the purported closing down of the industry, a valid closure itself being a foundation of such settlement and it being illegal and void and, thus, cannot be sustained in law. 3.Closure of the industrial undertaking resulting in retrenchment as contained in section 25N of the Act envisages fulfilment of two conditions precedent therefor, namely, (1) three months notice/notice pay in lieu thereof; and (2) prior permission of the appropriate Government and both being mandatory in nature; the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal as prior permission therefor had not been sought from the State. 4.The provisions of sections 25J, 25N and 25F should be read conjointly with section 25N of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and ultimately a settlement was worked out. This is quite apparent from the fact that the terms of settlement have also been signed by the Conciliation Officer, apart from the representatives of the management and representatives of the two workers unions. We entertain no doubt that the settlement was brought about in the course of conciliation proceedings with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer." (p. 788) 13. There can be no dispute that a settlement arrived at in terms of sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948, is binding on all the parties to the settlement. As already stated, the settlement between the parties is in full force and effect. There is no challenge to it till date. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given any reasons why the appellant is directed to be paid Rs. 23,509. As regards this Rs. 23,509 being paid to the appellant, learned advocate Ms. Razaq, on behalf of the Official Liquidator, submits that the said amount adjudicated in favour of the appellant, represents old dues payable to him other than Rs. 11,397, paid under the settlement and which dues were reflected in the statement of affairs filed by the ex-directors before the Official Liquidator. The payment of the said amount of Rs. 23,509 is not the subject-matter of this appeal and, therefore, I need not go into further details as regards the same. 16. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be sent to the superintendent of jail to be serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
