1 WP3452/05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3452 OF 2005 Chunilal s/o Daulat Patil Petitioner V E R S U S M/s Daily Gaokari, (Jalgaon) Subhash Chawk, Jalgaon and others Respondents Mr. Hemantkumar Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.V. Dankh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 26th April, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent No.1 / employer was not guilty of practicing unfair labour practice when they closed their composing section on 4th April, 1990. 2. The petitioner and seven others were admittedly employees of respondent No. 1. They were workers of composing section of respondent No.1’s establishment at Jalgaon. Admittedly, certain demands made by the petitioner and his co-workers were pending before respondent No. 1 – employer. But, suddenly on 4th April, 1990, the employer issued closure- notice and paid retrenchment compensation to the petitioner and others. The petitioner’s Labour Union then filed unfair labour practice complaint against respondent No. 1 – employer, but the same was dismissed on merits. Even the revision filed by the labour Union failed. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner tried to make submission that the closure was illegal because the workers’ demands were 2 WP3452/05 still under negotiation. However, he could not show law to bring home his point. He submitted further that the closure was illegal because the employer did not mention any reason for closure in the notice. Again, he could not show me any provision of Law which enjoins an employer to mention reason in the closure notice. In any case, this objection was not raised by the petitioner and his Union while the matter was before the lower Courts. The third contention of Shri Pawar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the closure was announced for victimizing the petitioner and other similarly placed workers. He tried to submit that since the petitioner and co-workers were making demands, the closure was announced to sabotage the demands and to teach them a lesson. He asserted that the closure was malafide. The Courts below examined this aspect of the case and held on facts that the closure could not be said to be malafide. In any case, it is settled Law that motive behind closure cannot be gone into. In view of this, there is no substance in the writ petition. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/3452/05/26/4/11