Case: Chandrabhushan Ramehandra Garu Vs. State of Maharashtra

( 2 ) AT the material time, the 1 st petitioner was employed as Supervisor, the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 as Junior Assistants and the 6th petitioner as senior assistant with the 3rd respondent. One Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. , a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 had established a factory for manufacture of tractors at Nasik within the State of Maharashtra. The said Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. had applied to this Court by company petition No. 27 of 1983 for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation with the 3rd respondent which was sanctioned on September 7, 1983 with retrospective effect from July 1, 1982. After arnalgamation, the Undertaking at Nasik was styled as kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. (Tractor Division). In or about the month of September, 1985, after reviewing the prospect of the Tractor Division, the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that it was impossible to run the Tractor Division with full complement and that there was imperative necessity to cut down its labour force as there was hardly any market for the products manufactured by the Tractor Division. At that time, the 3rd respondent had in its employment about 659 employees inclusive of workmen, supervisors, managers and executives. In September, 1985, the services of two 3 workmen and two supervisors were terminated by the 3rd respondent and about 37 supervisors resigned from service, bringing down the total force to about 618. In or about October, 1985 the 3rd respondent offered a voluntary retire ment scheme to its workmen whereunder about 481 workmen opted for the said scheme and retired from the services after collecting their legal dues and additional amounts payable to them. In addition thereto, about 11 supervisors 4 resigned from services and 2 workmen and 16 supervisors/officers were removed from services. In or about the beginning of November, 1985 the total complement of employees had come down to 180 inclusive of all categories. It may be mentioned here that in or about October, 1985, 94 emploees had applied to the Ubour Court, Nasik, by way of complaint under Section 28 read with item 1 of Schedule (IV) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 alleging inter alia that they apprehended that their services would be terminated and sought relief by way of anticipatory injunction to restrain the 3rd respondent from terminating 0 their services. Subsequently, about 76 employees amicably settled their disputes with the 3rd respondent under a Settlement dated June 30, 1986. More employees thereafter entered into settlement with the 3rd respondent and on and 5 from April, 1987 the total number of employees in the Tractor Division at Nasik continued to be 8 only.( 3 ) AN application dated September 8, 1986 was made by the 3rd respondent to the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of India, New Delhi, for permission to shift its Tractor manufacturing activity to the 3rd respondents factory at Saswad, District Flune within the state of Maharashtra so as to ensure economic viability to the Tractor Division. By an order of July 22, 1988, Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, Secretariat for Industrial ApprovalsSection) amended the Industrial Licence of the 3rd respondent and granted permission to change the location of the unit for manufacutre of tractors from Nasik Road, District Nasik to Saswad, District Flune. On or about September 11, 1987, the 3rd respondent also made an application to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Company Affairs for permission under Section 22 of the MRTP Act, 1969 to shift the Tractor Division from Nasik to Saswad. By order dated March 16, 1988, the Central Government approved the proposal of the 3rd respondent to shift the Tractor Division from Nasik to Saswad and accordingly the 3rd respondent transferred almost all the machinery and equipments from Nasik Road Factory to its Saswad factory in Puie District. With effect from November 24, 1988, the entire Undertaking of the 3rd respondent was transferred to Saswad and since January 1989,the said Undertaking has been closed4 ) IN the year 1985, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 5285 of 1985 in this Court for the same reliefs as claimed herein. By the Order passed on December 6, 1986, that writ petition was rejected on January 16, 1989,the Special leave Petition No. 5499 of 1988 filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. At that time, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent had made a statement before the Supreme Court that the Undertaking of the 3rd respondent was closed. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to apporach this Court. On or about April 20, 1989, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

Court's reasoning:
In our view, the Supreme Court has not granted leave to the petitioners to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action on which the said earlier Writ Petition No. 5285 of 1985 was filed by the petitioners. That apart, since in our view there is no merit in the contentions even 0 now raised in the present petition and on the facts of the case, it was not obligatory on the part of the 3rd respondent to take prior permission of the appropriate Government contemplated under Sectionof the saidAct for closure of its undertaking at Saswad, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever in the petition.