Case: Messrs West Jamuria Coal Company, Limited Vs. Their Workmen

3. The West Jamuria Colliery which belongs to the appellant was closed down, from September 15, 1963. Formerly, Messrs Macneill & Barry Limited were the managing agents of this company. The managing agency ceased from December 31, 1959 and from January 1, 1960 the affairs of the company were being managed by a Board of Directors. The colliery had four seams, Taltore, Ponthati, Koithee and Jamuria. At the time of the closure of the colliery, the Jamuria seam was being worked. Consequent on dispute, arising between the management and its workmen, regarding the quantum of compensation, payable on the closure of the colliery, the same was referred, by the Central Government, to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, for adjudication.4. The case of management was that the colliery had to be closed, on account of unavoidable circumstances, beyond its control and hence it was liable to pay compensation to its workmen under clause (b) of S. 25F, in view of the proviso to(1) of S. 25FFF. On the other hand, the contention of workmen was that the closure itself was unjustified and, in any event, the closure of the colliery was by reason merely of financial difficulties experienced by the management, and hence, in view of the Explanation to the proviso of(1) of S. 25FFF they were entitled to compensation under the principal part of(1) of s. 25FFF. The Industrial Tribunal has accepted the case of the workmen and has held that the closure of the colliery was almost entirely due to financial difficulties, and that the claim of the management, that the closure is due to unavoidable circumstances beyond its control, cannot be accepted.

Reasoning: 6. It is seen that both the management, as well as the workmen, adduced oral evidence, in support of their respective claims; but the Tribunal has characterised that evidence as interested, and has not chosen to place any reliance on such evidence. In view of this opinion, expressed the Tribunal, we do not think that any error has been committed by the Tribunal, when it disregarded that evidence. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, fails.From these letters it will be seen that the reasons given by the management for taking a decision to close the colliery are mainly bad roofing, presence of gas and the mine having become exhausted.In this Court, the appellant has filed C.M.P. No. 676 of 1967, praying for receiving as additional evidence certain cost statements for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960  the balance sheets for the years 1958 and 1959. We are not inclined to grant this request and accordingly, dismiss C.M.P. No. 676 of 1967.22. From what is stated above, it is clear that the plea of the management, that the closure of the colliery was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We have already referred to the evidence of Shri Ghose, to the effect that the circumstances relied on by the management, regarding bad roofing, presence of gas, etc., are not new to this colliery and that they are present in other collieries, which are being worked. We have also pointed out that the claim of the management, that in view of the sequence of depillaring, laid down by the Coal Board, in its letter of March 26, 1962, the working of the colliery has been made impossible, is falsified by the evidence of managements own witness, Shri Lobo, M.W. 3. No doubt, it is borne out by the evidence of Shri Ghose, that the management will have to incur expenditure in the matter of providing support for the roofing and for furnishing safety lamps to the workmen. The plea of the management, that the seam is nearing exhaustion, has been falsified by the evidence of Shri Ghose. The various circumstances relied on by the management, either individually or collectively, in our opinion, will not make the closure as being due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the management.23. Having due regard to the balance sheets, referred to by the Tribunal, it is clear that the undertaking has been closed down by reason merely of financial losses. The explanation to(1) of S. 25FFF makes it clear that an undertaking which is closed down, by reason merely of financial difficulties (including financial losses), shall not be deemed to have been closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances, beyond the control of the employer.