1. Heard Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the Order, dt.7.8.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.412 of 2004 whereby the complaint filed by the respondents was partly allowed and layoff declared by the petitioner was held illegal and full back wages were granted for the period of lay off. The Court held that the petitioner herein committed the unfair labour practice while resorting to layoff and not paying Wages (vide item 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The payment of workers was held as wrongfully withheld by the employer.

3. It is argued that the petitioner is an ‘industry’ engaged in manufacturing of Gas Cylinders at Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur and the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 are applicable and not Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling in the case of Tatanagar Foundry Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen reported in AIR 1962 SC 1533 to argue that it is not open for the Industrial Court to find out whether the management could have avoided the layoff. Of course, the employer is expected to manage his affairs prudently in anticipating and avoiding the difficulties before he may layoff his workmen. Where layoff satisfies the tests laid down under Section 2 (kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not open for the Tribunal to inquire whether the employer could have avoided layoff if he had been more diligent, more careful and farsighted. That is a matter relating to the management of the undertaking and unless mala fides are alleged or proved, the Industrial Tribunal cannot exceed its jurisdiction in dealing with the dispute whether layoff was justified. The Industrial Tribunal would not sit as an appellate Court over the acts of management of the employer so as to investigate whether a more prudent management could have avoided the situation which led to lay off.

5. In the case in hand, it appears that the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur considered the fact that the Oil Companies suspended the license of the petitioner to manufacture the gas cylinders. There was documentary evidence in the form of Exh.47A and 47B before the Industrial Court. Exh.47A is the communication/letter dt.19.8.2004 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to the petitioner herein stating that one cylinder manufactured by the petitioner was sent for test to LERC and it did not meet the specification of percentage elongation. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to suspend production and dispatches of LPG cylinders with immediate effect and to take corrective action to get it duly verified by BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). While Exh.47B is a letter from the BIS which advised the petitioner herein to improve quality of their product within one month from the date of issuance of letter, failing which they will take action including stopping marking as per procedure of BIS. Thus, the sample cylinder which was sent for test was not as per the required specification for which the petitioner was advised to take corrective measures immediately. And hence, the petitioner was also advised to suspend production and discharge of LPG cylinders with immediate effect.

6. Moreover, para 10 of the impugned Judgment of the Industrial Court, Nagpur shows that Exh.51A is a letter written by the petitioner herein to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, in which it is mentioned that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was having order of 2000 cylinders from Bharat Petroleum. It is further mentioned therein that the petitioner was also having orders of monthly 3000 hot repairs cylinders. Letter dt.1.11.2004 written by the petitioner also shows that the petitioner was having orders for manufacturing 5000 cylinders. Since all thes