IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a closure permitted under the Industrial Disputes Act remains valid unless successfully challenged within a reasonable timeframe.

JUDGMENT :

J.NISHA BANU, J.

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.9293 of 2020 dated 28.11.2023.

Challenging the order made by this Court in W.P.No.9293 of 2020 dated 28.11.2023, wherein, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the Award passed by the Labour Court in holding that the demand made by KEMPF Employees Union/appellant herein to reopen the factory and to reinstate the workers as 'not justified', under Section 10(1)(c) & Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act'), the aggrieved petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

2. The material facts which need to be summarized for the purpose of the present appeal are thus:-

2.1. KEMPF India Limited, having its registered office at Coimbatore, is into the manufacture of Propeller shafts and Universal Cross Join Kits used in Automobile Industry. It is averred in the petition that due to frequent dissatisfaction displayed by its workers in the form of strikes and accumulating financial losses, the respondent Management sought permission under Section 25-O of the I.D. Act to close down the manufacturing unit in Malumichampatti, Coimbatore.

2.2. The claim of closure putforth by the respondent Management was countered by the appellant Union. The application seeking permission for closure, dated 06.04.1990 was submitted by the respondent Management but the same was refused by the Commissioner of Labour vide order dated 11.06.1990. Aggrieved against such refusal, the respondent Management filed a review application, dated 22.06.1990 under Section 25(5) of the I.D. Act. to the Government of Tamil Nadu.

2.3. After considering the points raised by the respondent Management, the Secretary to Government vide G.O.(ID) No.269, Labour and Employment Department, dated 06.09.1990 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras with a direction to submit its Award within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

2.4. The appellant Union challenged the above G.O.(ID) No.269, dated 06.09.1990 by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.15835 of 1990 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.10.1990. Against the order of dismissal of W.P., the appellant Union preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1101 of 1990. This Court, vide judgment dated 21.12.1990 allowed the said writ appeal, thereby setting aside the Government order of reference with a direction to the Government to issue notice in the review application to all parties, and to hear them and thereafter pass fresh orders on the review application or on any fresh application made.

2.5. Subsequently, on 17.06.1991, after serving notice to all parties and holding enquiry, the Government passed an order in the Review application granting permission for closure vide G.O.(ID) No.644, Labour and Employment Department. On 25.06.1991, closure notice was sent to all the workmen with closure compensation by cheque and it was duly initimated to the authorities. The appellant Union again challenged the above Government order granting permission for closure, dated 17.06.1991 by way of filing W.P.No.9069 of 1991 and also filed W.M.P.No.13604 of 1991 for stay. In the said stay petition, this Court granted an order of Status Quo, taking note of the fact that closure order has been given effect by paying closure compensation to the workmen by cheques, surrendering the factory license etc.

2.6. Again, this Court vide order dated 17.07.2001 dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.9069 of 1991, thereby giving liberty to the workmen to work out their remedies by raising necessary dispute as to non-employment or as to other claim before appropriate Authority. No appeal was preferred against this order of this Court. In the year 2013, after 22 years from the date of closure of the respondent Management, the appellant Union came up with a claim petition in I.D.No.34 of 2013