IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 18609 of 2004 Between: FACOR Karmika Sangam, bearing Registration No. D/1377/94 affiliated to CITU., Sreeramnagar, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District rep. by its President. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, S.S. Bhawan, Ranji Marg,New Delhi, rep. by its Secretary. 2 FACOR Alloys Corporation Ltd, Sreeram Nagar, Garividi - 535 101, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the proceedings No. F-1/29024/5/2003-IR (Misc) dt. 21-9-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing an appropriate writ or direction, especially in the nature of writ of Mandamus. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR. GANTA RAMA RAO. The Court made the following : The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu W.P. No. 18609 of 2004 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to declare the Proceedings in F.No.L-29024/5/2003-IR (Misc) dated 21.9.2004 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner is a registered trade union of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. It has got strength of 500 members. The 2nd respondent applied for lay off and it was sanctioned initially for a period of six months w.e.f. 16.8.1999. Thereafter, the lay off was extended for another period of 12 months w.e.f. 16.12.2000. Again it was extended for a period of 12 months up to 1.2.2001. Further extension was granted on 3.2.2003 for a period of 12 months and on 22.3.2004 once again extension was granted w.e.f. 16.2.2004 for a period of 12 months. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice from the 2nd respondent to the effect that the 1st respondent would convene a meeting to consider grant of permission for closure of 5 mines belonging to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner attended the said meeting and submitted objections. The 1st respondent by proceedings dated 25.3.2004 rejected the request of the 2nd respondent for closure of 5 mining units. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 21.9.2004 the 1st respondent sanctioned permission under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to close four units. According to the petitioner, no notice is given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 21.9.2004 and therefore it is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the present petition. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner is not a registered union. When objection was taken by the 2nd respondent against the participation of the petitioner herein before the 1st respondent vide letter dated 16.3.2004 as all the workmen in these mines are represented by the other two unions. However, notice was served on the petitioner-union as per the direction of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has sent copy of review application dated 31.3.2004 to all the 3 unions including the petitioner union and thereafter a notice dated 11.5.2004 informing about the date of hearing on the said review application was also served on the petitioner on 18.5.2004. It is further stated that as a matter of fact the General Secretary of the petitioner union participated before the 1st respondent and submitted his written objections. Therefore, the allegation that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order is baseless. The petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and that all the 5 mines were already surrendered to the State Government because of non-viability and due to technological changes in the usage of this material. After following the due procedure the 1st respondent was granted permission under Section 25(o) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the 2nd respondent prays to dismiss the writ petition. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without affording any opportunity the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 25.9.2004 and therefore it suffers from serious legal infirmities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner is not a registered union. However, notices have been sent to the petitioner union also and the General Secretary of the petitioner union participated in the hearing of the review application and the review application does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference. As seen from the allegations in the affidavit, the only grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was given before reviewing the orders passed by the 1st respondent. Admittedly the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 25.3.2004 rejected the request of the 2nd respondent for closure of 5 mining units under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, it was also directed to explore the possibility to accommodate 24 workmen either in the 2nd respondent or any other establishment of the 2nd respondent or to provide voluntary retirement scheme to the effected workmen. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed review application dated 31.3.2004 stating that the unit has been incurring losses and it was causing hardship to the company. A copy of the proceedings dated 11.5.2004 issued by the 1st respondent is made available to this court by the 2nd respondent, wherein the 1st respondent directed the agent of the 2nd respondent and also the concerned unit members to be present on 28.5.2004. As seen from this copy, the FACOR Karmika Sangham also received notice. After obtaining the necessary signatures informing the date of hearing, the 2nd respondent filed a memo. The General Secretary of the FACOR Karmika Sangham received notice on 18.5.2004. Basing on the material available on record, the 1st respondent passed the impugned proceedings on the ground that as the Management has surrendered the mining lease, there is no scope for continuing the mining operations and due to surplus manpower the corporation is not in a position to re-deploy the workmen to be retrenched on closure of these mines. Having considered the reasonableness/genuineness of the Management, the 1st respondent gave permission for closure of mines w.e.f. 16.10.2004 subject to the condition that all arrears of wages and other statutory dues of the workmen are cleared by the management before the workmen are retrenched. The order is passed after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the Management and also the Unions. Therefore, the order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference. Though the petitioner is not entitled for any notice since the petitioner is not a registered union, yet the 2nd respondent served notice with regard to review application filed before the 1st respondent. Therefore, the principles of natural justice have been followed by the 1st respondent before passing the impugned proceedings. No other ground has been raised or shown that the impugned proceedings are contrary to law or illegal or arbitrary. It is not a case of 1st respondent passing the order behind the back of the petitioner. The order under challenge is completely in accordance with law. More over, the interest of the workmen has been protected. Hence the writ petition is totally devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. __________________ K.C. Bhanu, J. Date: --12—2004. MVB. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Secretary, , Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, S.S. Bhawan, Ranji Marg, New Delhi. 2 FACOR Alloys Corporation Ltd, Sreeram Nagar, Garividi - 535 101, Vizianagaram District. 3. 2CD copies