Pearl Agencies vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1950 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the orders dated 4.2.1998, passed by the Appellate Committee and order dated 12.10.2001 by the Second Appellate Committee, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

2. Petitioner had taken the plea before the Appellate Committee as well as the second Appellate Committee that it was unable to fulfill its quota on account of labour strike. It is urged that this amounted to force majeure condition and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to relief without having the forfeiture of its Letter of Undertaking (LUT).

3. Mr. Maitri, learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his submission submitted that the Second Appellate Committee, has placed reliance on a letter dated 27.3.1998, of the Labour Commissioner. Mr. Maitri submits that the said letter does not "belong to it". By this, he means that the letter does not pertain to the exporter. Learned counsel submits that it is true that the strike and the labour problem in the petitioner's unit commenced sometime in 1995. It is also contended that the short fall was due t the strike at the relevant time. Mr. Maitri places reliance on a letter dated 1.1.1997, received from the Labour Commissioner with regard to the complaint received regarding removal of 10 employees from the employment. He also places reliance on the correspondence exchanged with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, regarding the complaint received from the said employees. Reference is made to a letter appears at page 23 of the paper book where Petitioner complains of the loss of productivity on account of absence of these employees.

4. Mr. Maitri submits that as the petitioner was unable to resolve the labour dispute, it surrendered the quota on 31.112.1996, which happens to be the last date for fulfillment of export obligation. Learned counsel urges that the above would constitute a force majeure situation.

5. I am not persanded to accept this reason. It is not in dispute that there was no lock out or complete cessation of activities at any time. Although the labour problem commenced in 1995, the petitioner had sought revalidation of the quota in October, 1996. Petitioner being fully aware of the disputes and the labour problem took a business risk in having its quota revalidated. In case things did not turn up as expected and the labour problem did not get resolved, the same cannot be equated to a force majeure situation, where there is a supervening event, beyond control which renders performance of the contract impossible. The surrender on the last date would also not change the scenario. Moreover, the Appellate Committee and the second Appellate Committee have returned a finding of fact that force majeure conditions did not exist. The submission of Mr. Maitri that the letter of Labour Commissioner dated 27.3.1998, did not pertain to the petitioner would also not make any difference inasmuch as the facts are not disputed, namely, that the labour problem/strike commenced in 1995 and it continued till 1996. It would not make any difference that the said letter did not relate to him although the respondents dispute the assertion.

At this belated stage, Mr. Maitri wishes to urge that the 1995 problem got solved in between. I am afraid this was not the case, as had been set out in the writ petition or otherwise.

No ground is made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Advocates' Welfare Fund.