The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consequences of an illegal closure are statutorily prescribed, and the workmen are entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if such undertaking had not been closed down.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an award dated 30th November, 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dadara and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa in I.D.R. No. 1 of 2010 whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal was persuaded to declare that action of the petitioner in closing down its industrial establishment/factory at Dapada was illegal, direct the petitioner to give re-employment to all the retrenched workmen employed at the time of illegal closure of the industrial establishment, except 14 employees who had settled their claims with the petitioner and were shown circled in red ink in Annexure A to the order of Reference, and to give all the benefits admissible under the law for the time being in force including backwages till re-employment to all the employees (except aforesaid 14 employees) to which they would have been entitled to as if the undertaking had not been closed down, and future wages regularly from the date they were actually allowed to resume the work in terms of the said award.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:-

3.1 The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It was engaged in the activity of manufacturing of toothpaste in its factory at Dapada, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The respondent is a trade union representing the workmen employed at the petitioner’s factory. In the month of August, 2009 the petitioner was allegedly constrained to suspend the manufacturing activity for lack of work orders from Hindustan Unilever. The petitioner thus issued a notice of closure dated 12th September, 2009, pursuant to which the services of all workmen in the petitioner’s industrial establishment were to terminate from 12th October, 2009.

3.2 The petitioner claims workmen were offered closure compensation at the time of termination of their services. Since the petitioner had then engaged less than 100 workmen on an average per working day in the preceding 12 months, the provisions of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act, 1947) were not attracted. Appreciating the genuine constraints, the petitioner’s claims, most of the workmen settled their claims with the petitioner. However, 34 employees raised an industrial dispute vide application dated 5th October, 2009 complaining that the petitioner had effected closure of its industrial establishment w.e.f. 12th October, 2009 in breach of statutory provisions and without payment of their legal dues.

3.3 The Labour Enforcement Officer entered into a conciliation proceeding. As the conciliation proceeding did not succeed, the Labour Commissioner, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10(1)(d) of the ID Act, 1947 referred the following industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Silvassa for adjudication.

DISPUTE

Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Global Health Care, Dapada in allegedly closing down its undertaking without observing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and subsequently refusing to concede the demands of workers, who have not accepted dues in full, or reinstatement with full backwages and dues of Rs. 2 lakhs each for every completed year of service in lieu of reinstatement as per details contained in Annexure A is legal and justified ?

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?

Encl: Annexure ‘A’.

3.4 It would be contextually relevant to note that Annexure A contained a list of 34 employees i.e. 25 workmen, 8 supervisors and 1 office boy.

3.5 The respondent/union filed its statement of claim on 14th September, 2011. The petitioner resisted the claim of the respondent by filing its written statement. In the meanwhile, while the Reference awaited adjudica