1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2619 OF 2008 M/s.Santosh Industries. ...Petitioner. Vs. Maharashtra Engineering Plastic General Kamgar Union & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. K.S. Bapat with Mr. T.R. Yadav and Mr. H.R. Sharma for the Petitioner. Ms.Rita Joshi with Mr. A.D. Shetty for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 16, 2008. P.C.: Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. The Petition, in the present case, is directed against an order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the Revision 2 Application against the judgment of the Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Petitioner before the Court is a partnership concern which came into existence in 1991. The firm had, at the material time, employed three workers, namely, Umashankar Varma, Bakelal Chaurasiya and Hariram Singh. On 10th March 1994, a notice of closure was put up by the Petitioner. The First Respondent, which is a Trade Union, instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices. The contention of the Petitioner was that the partnership firm did not employ ten employees as alleged in the complaint, but only three persons were engaged. The Petitioner produced the muster and wage register. The First Respondent examined two witnesses in support of its case, while the partner of the Petitioner was examined in defence. The Labour Court by a judgment and order dated 18th April 2000, came to the conclusion that the closure was illegal for the reason that no permission had been taken under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Having held that the closure was not in accordance with law, the 3 Labour Court held that there was no evidence to establish that the establishment was legally closed or that retrenchment compensation has been paid. An order of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 10th March 1994 was passed. The order of the Labour Court was confirmed in Revision by the Industrial Court. The principal submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that closure permission was required under Section 25-O is ex-facie contrary to law since the provisions of Chapter V-B were not attracted. In dealing with these submissions, it would merit emphasis that the first issue that was framed by the Labour Court was whether the complainant-Union has proved that the workers whose names were set out in Annexure-A were employed by the Petitioner herein. The issue was answered in the affirmative in regard to three workers. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it is now an established position that the partnership firm had engaged three workers at the material time. 4 On this admitted position, it is evident that Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not attracted. Yet, the Labour Court proceeded to hold that the closure was illegal on the ground that permission under Section 25-O was not taken. This finding discloses a clear error apparent on the record. This part of the finding is not supported on behalf of the Respondent-Union. However, it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent that the Labour Court had also found that the provisions of Section 25F were not complied with and the termination of the workers was illegal. Now, so far as the issue of payment of closure compensation is concerned, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the closure notice dated 10th March 1994 specifically called upon the workmen to collect their unpaid wages and legal dues at 4 p.m. on 19th March 1994. The partner of the Petitioner who deposed in evidence stated that the notice was duly displayed on the Gate of the establishment and individual notices were also sent to the workers. The witness stated that legal dues 5 were offered to all the workers who had refused to accept them. During the course of the cross-examination, however, the witness stated that copies of postal receipts had not been produced on record to show that the notices were posted on 10th March 1994. In support of the contention that there was a closure in fact, the wage and muster registers were duly produced. The finding of the Labour Court that there was no evidence to establish that the Company was legally closed is based on the earlier finding that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-O. That part of the finding, for the reasons already noted earlier, is unsustainable. There was evidence of the witness who deposed on behalf of the Petitioner to demonstrate that a notice of the closure was in fact, put up on the gate of the establishment on 10th March 1994 and that despite an offer of the payment of legal dues, the three workers had not come forth to accept their dues. This aspect of the evidence has been completely overlooked in the judgment of the Labour Court and in the revisional order of the Industrial Court. 6 In the circumstances, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the order of the Labour Court which allowed the complaint of unfair labour practices was unsustainable. The Industrial Court while considering the revision application failed to appreciate the position that the principal basis of the judgment of the Labour Court, namely, the applicability of the provisions of Section 25- O was completely erroneous. For these reasons, the order passed by the Labour Court granting reinstatement with full back wages is clearly unsustainable. The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court would have to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. However, from the material on the record, it has emerged that the salaries for the month of February 1994 and ten days of the month March 1994 were not paid. In so far as the month of January 1994, the case of the employer was that the workers had been paid their salaries, but that the workers had refused to sign wage register. During the course of the hearing of the petition, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated that without entering into the controversy of the payment of salary of 7 January 1994, the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire dues of the workers representing salary for the months of January and February 1994 and 10 days of March 1994, including days of closure. Learned Counsel states that in addition, all the three workers will be paid their closure compensation in accordance with law. The statement as aforesaid is accepted. There shall be a direction to the effect that the entire dues of the workers shall be paid to the workers within a period of two weeks from today. The petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. .....