JUDGMENT: (Per Chavan, J.)

1. This appeal, by employer, takes exception to the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.243 of 1997, whereby the learned Judge allowed the complaint of the employees bearing No.942 of 1995, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, which had been rejected by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur.

2. The appellant-employer is a small scale industry which commenced production in the year 1985. On 17.10.1993 the appellant gave a statutory notice of closure, since due to financial difficulties, the appellant was not in a position to run the factory. On completion of the statutory period of sixty days, on 17.12.1993, the employees were paid compensation admissible under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 18.01.1994 the respondents, who claimed to be the representatives of employees, applied before the Labour Court complaining of an illegal change and illegal lock out in the garb of closure. In June, 1995 the company made efforts to restart the factory on trial basis, and though it claimed that it had no obligation to pay the employees whose services had been terminated at the time of closure, as a matter of good gesture, on 25.10.1995 it sent letters to the employees offering them employment. Though 19 persons reported for duty on 25.06.1995 and were asked to collect appointment letters on 02.07.1995, they refused to accept letters of appointment and join the duties. On 07.07.1995 the employees were given one more chance to reconsider, however, none joined. Respondent No.1 made an application under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act for conciliation. The conciliation failed on 14.07.1995. The complaint, which was rejected by the learned Member, Industrial Court and which led to filing of the writ petition, leading to the impugned judgment, was filed on 16.08.1995.

3.The learned single Judge held that the closure applied for by the appellant was not for the reason of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, but was due to financial difficulties. The learned Judge observed that only when the closure was applied for on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, workmen would be disentitled to reemployment under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge drew this conclusion after considering the observations of the Apex Court in Punjab Land Devel. & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, reported at 1990(3) SCC 682. The learned Judge found that in offer of re-employment there was variance in English and Hindi versions and, therefore, concluded that there was no clear and unambiguous offer. He held that since there was no compliance with the requirement of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the complaint ought to have been allowed and therefore, proceeded to allow the petition by quashing and setting aside contrary order of the learned Member, Industrial Court. This judgment is assailed by the employer on the ground that the learned Judge erred in holding that Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act was attracted to the case of respondents-employees.

4. Learned Advocate Shri Samarth for the appellant-employer placed for our perusal, judgments of the Apex Court in Maruti Udyog Vs. Ramlal, reported at 2005(2) SCC 638 and District Red Cross Society Vs. Babita Arora, reported at AIR 2007 SC 2879, apart from the judgment in Punjab Land Development Corporation, reported at 1990(3) SCC 682, which was before the learned single Judge. The leaned counsel submitted that it has been categorically held by the Apex Court in these decisions that termination of services of the employees on account of closure does not amount to retrenchment, but is deemed to be retrenchment only for the purpose of computation of compensation payable to such workmen. Clause-I of Section 25 FFF of the Ind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document