The court upheld the legality of the closure of the industrial establishment, affirming that the majority acceptance of a severance package by workers binds all, including dissenting individuals.

ORDER :

R.N.Manjula, J.

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.6019 of 2023 has been filed challenging the Government Order issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.171, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (A2) Department dated 28.12.2022, through which, permission was given by the Government to close down the second respondent's Chennai Plant of Ford India Private Limited with effect from 31.01.2023 and quash the same.

2. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Kanchipuram made in I.A.Nos.1 to 1 of 2024 dated 26.06.2024 in the industrial dispute filed by the workmen and quash the same.

3. Heard Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs.M.Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for R2 in all the Writ Petitions and perused the materials available on record.

4. The case of the petitioners are as follows:

The petitioners who were working under the second respondent Company have alleged that they have been illegally retrenched by the second respondent and the Government has issued the impugned Government Order permitting the second respondent to close down the Chennai Plant without following the due procedure and without giving a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who are the workers of the second respondent. It is further alleged that the Government Order is unjust and illegal and it is contrary to Section 25(O) (1 & 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w Rule 61(B)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Rules. Since proper notice has not been given in a prescribed manner, there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

4.1. The petitioners were served with the copy of the application seeking permission itself only on 19.12.2022 on which date, they were given with personal hearing. Without hearing the petitioners on the papers submitted by the second respondent to the first respondent, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioners' submissions were heard on 19.12.2022. In fact on 19.12.2022 nothing had taken place because the petitioners were given with the copy of the application seeking permission for closure itself only on the said date.

4.2. The Government Order relied upon the settlement dated 30.09.2022 and its acceptance of 97% of the workers. But, the same was contrary to the law on hands. Hence, the ratio decidendi laid down in the case of M/s.Oswal Agro Furane Ltd., Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and Ors, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 224 should be followed in order to hold that the petitioners were illegally retrenched. The petitioners are entitled to the wages and other benefits as per Section 25(O)(6) of the Act.

5. Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent Management did not give any notice for closure to the employees. On the notice given by the Government, the petitioners went and participated in the proceedings seeking permission for closure. The petitioners had raised a 2A dispute before the Labour Court and the same is pending. The R4 application filed by the second respondent seeking permission for closure of the Chennai Plant did not have the signature of the second respondent and the said fact is revealed through a copy furnished to the petitioners. This is in violation of the Rules.

5.1. The petitioners and 58 others have not given any authorisation to the Union to conclude the settlement. So the settlement dated 30.09.2022 is not in accordance with Rule 25 of the Act. The settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act would only bind the parties to the agreement. The settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act was deliberately avoided as the Government could not endorse the terms of the settlement as fair and just and it is not in compliance with Chapter V(B) of the Act.

5.2. On 05.09.2022, the Management wanted the petitioners and others to give r