9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 12-3-2009 - M.R. SHAH, J. R.D. Raval for the Petitoner. Trivedi and Gupta for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Krunan Nayak, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Trivedi and Gupta, waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By way of this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad in Review Application (ICM) No. 1 of 2004. 4. The facts leading to the present special civil application, in nutshell, are as under : All the petitioners were/are workmen of respondent M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Their services came to be terminated in the year 1985 and therefore, the respective petitioners workmen preferred T. applications before the Labour Court, Nadiad under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. That it appears that the respondent-company approached the Board for Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BIFR It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of section 22 of the SICA. It is further submitted that the bar under section 22 of the SICA would come into play where any execution of the order having financial implication is sought. It is submitted that in the present case even the adjudication is yet to take place and only thereafter the question with respect to execution of the judgment and order will come. It is submitted that even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Industrial Tribunal has materially erred in staying the further proceedings of T. applications which are of the year 1985 and all the petitioners/workmen are out of job since 1985. It is further submitted that at the relevant time when the T. applications were submitted, the respondent-company was not before the BIFR and the respondent-company approached the BIFR for the first in the year 2000 and the scheme alleged to have been sanctioned in the year 2003. It is further submitted that, therefore, the bar under section 22 of the SICA would not be attracted. It is further submitted that in any case, the tribunal is not justified in st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e workmen obtain consent from the BIFR. It is submitted that the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR is under implementation and therefore, any proceedings having financial implications, are required to be stayed, otherwise it will affect the entire scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, which is for restructuring and revival of the company. 9. It is submitted that the company is closed since 2000 and at the relevant time there were 5,662 workmen and thereafter due to the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, which is valid for 10 years, the said scheme is being operated and implemented, more than 2,500 workmen have got voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and at present there are only 3,500 workmen in the respondent-company. 10. Mr. Trivedi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Abad Dairy v. Manjibhai Dhanjibhai [2000] 3 GLH 409, as well as another decision of the learned single judge in the case of Morarji Desai Textile Labour Co-operative Industries Ltd. v. Thakorebhai Dhulabhai Patel [2003] 2 LLJ 129. 11. Relying upon the above decisions and making the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated by the petitioners by way of T. applications are to be quashed and set aside and/or they are to be suspended till the consent from the BIFR is obtained. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent-company has not produced on record the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. It is also required to be noted that the respective petitioners are out of job since 1985 and the respondent-company approached the BIFR in the year 2000 only. It is very unfortunate that even after 15 years the T. applications of 1985 were not decided and disposed of by the Labour Court. Now, considering the contention and submission on behalf of respondent No. 2, the petitioners are still required to wait till adjudication of the respective T. applications which are sought to be suspended by respondent No. 2. As stated above, the services of the respective petitioners have been terminated in the year 1985, i.e., prior to 24 years and it will be very difficult for the petitioners and their family members to survive. The bar under section 22 of the SICA would be applicable only at the time when there will be financial implication and award is sought to be implemented/executed having financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
