Daulat S/O Chunnilal Kawre And ... vs Simplex Papers Limited, Mumbai, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3451 Bom

                                                          1                                  35.WP.3226-2021.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3226 OF 2021
                 ( Daulat S/o Chunnilal Kawre & Ors.
                                  Vs.
  M/s. Simplex Papers Limited, Thr. Chairman and Managing Director &
                                Anr. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. G.D. Asole, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                                  Mr. R.B. Puranik, Advocate for the Respondents.




                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 6th APRIL, 2023

Heard Mr. Asole, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Puranik, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petition challenges the judgment of the Industrial Court Bhandara dated 21.12.2019, whereby the complaints filed by the petitioners have been partly allowed by granting them monetary benefits instead of the relief claimed of quashing the order of the Labour Commissioner dated 03.05.2007, whereby the permission under Section 25-O (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the "I.D. Act") for closure of the establishment was granted.

3. The learned Industrial Court in the impugned

2 35.WP.3226-2021.odt

judgment has rendered a categorical finding, that in view of the provisions of Section 25-O (5) of the I.D. Act, the complaint has been filed by the petitioners under Section 28, items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the "M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act) 1971, was not maintainable in light of the provisions of Section 25-O (5) and (4) of the I.D. Act.

4. Mr. Asole, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that since an earlier plea by the respondents for retrenchment under Section 25-N of the I.D. Act, was turned down, in light of Section 25-N (5) of the I.D. Act, the application under Section 25-O of the I.D. Act, which was filed on 05.03.2007 was clearly not maintainable, and therefore, the order dated 03.05.2007, was without jurisdiction. It is further contended, that the provisions of Section 25-N (5) of the I.D. Act, would act as a statutory bar to the exercise of the powers by the Commissioner under Section 25-O of the I.D. Act.

5. Mr. Puranik, learned counsel for the respondents submits, that both the provisions operate in a different arena altogether and there is no statutory bar prohibiting the consideration and decision of the application under Section 25-O of the I.D. Act, inspite of the rejection of an earlier application under Section 25-M of the I.D. Act, as according to him, there was no application under Section 25-N of the I.D. Act, but what was applied for was permission for layoff under Section 25-M of the I.D. Act. He further submits, that the

3 35.WP.3226-2021.odt

challenge under Section 28, items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule-IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, to the impugned judgment, was clearly not tenable in light of the provisions of Section 25-O (5) of the I.D. Act. He submits, that even otherwise the complaints are severely hit by delay and latches inasmuch as the order by the Labour Commissioner, permitting closure is dated 03.05.2007 and challenge to the same was laid on 18.02.2015 more than 7 years after the passing of the order.

6. List the matter on 10.04.2023.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte