JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited, a State owned Corporation, has been making efforts to improve the economic viability of its Textile Unit at Mumbai, which was nationalised and entrusted to the said State Corporation to run it better than the erstwhile owners of the said Mills viz. Western India Spinning and Manufacturing Mills.

2. It appears that the efforts of the Corporation have not met with expected success in recovering the Unit from its chronic sickness. In the revival efforts on the part of the State Corporation there are number of hurdles to be crossed requiring masterly skill in field of business and management acumen. Very often the bureaucratic character of the functioning of such Corporation makes it impossible to achieve its business aim. In the present case I may mention that the respondent No. 3 a representative and approved Union for the Textile Industry in the local area of Greater Mumbai, under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act, 1946 is also within its own limits trying to co-operate with the petitioners Management. The said Union has gone to the extent of entering into an agreement dated 10-8-1998 which is duly registered under the provisions of the Act to agree to reduce the sanctioned complement of the posts by 174, even by stopping the third shift working. It is an admitted position that there was a surplus work force in the mills which required to be reduced to ease the economic burden of the sick textile. The petitioners, therefore, applied on 29-1-1999 to the appropriate authority under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission to retrench 49 of the surplus employees. Out of the total number of 729 employees the petitioners proposed retrenchment of 49 employees. The surplus labour force admitted by the respondent No. 3 Union under the registered agreement appear to be 174. In its application in the prescribed form under section 25-N of the I.D. Act the petitioners have pointed out, inter alia, the factors and conditions which have compelled them to seek permission for retrenchment of only 49 employees out of 729. All the required information and data was given by the petitioners in the prescribed forms including the profit and loss accounts and balance sheet etc. The petitioners have also annexed a list of the employees proposed to be retrenched in accordance with their seniority. I am not able to reconcile the figures of the proposed retrenchment of the employees in the covering letter dated 29-1-1999 and the number of proposed retrenchment of 49 workmen while the list of the proposed retrenchment is of 89 operatives and 71 clerical staff. I am however, confining myself to the figure of 49 which has appeared in the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority as well as in the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. However, though there was no attempt on the part of the learned Advocate for the petitioners to reconcile and explain the variance in the different figures, one fact is certain and beyond doubt that under the registered agreement both the parties have agreed that there was a surplus labour force requiring removal in accordance with law. The surplus labour force has been located and identified department/occupation/post wise. It is also clear that the petitioners have proposed to retrench only 49 of the total surplus labour force. In the registered agreement the respondent No. 5 Union has agreed that the surplus workers would be retired under the voluntary retirement scheme or by natural separation or would be provided alternative suitable work in any departments of the mills by protecting their present wage in consultation with R.M.M.S. Payment of ex gratia amounts are also laid down in the agreement. There are other conditions mentioned in the said agreement with which we are not presently concerned.

3. The competent authority, the Labour Commissioner, heard the parties and by its order dated 30-3-1999 rejected the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document