Bombay High Court
Bharat Forge Employees Union Chakan vs Bharat Forge Ltd. And Anr on 25 January, 2021
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik
3. wpst 98325-20.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ST.NO. 98325 OF 2020
BHARAT FORGE EMPLOYEES UNION CHAKAN ..PETITIONER
vs.
BHARAT FORGE LTD. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
------------------------
Shri Sanjay Singhvi, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rahul Kamerkar for
petitioner.
Shri J.P.Cama, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Varun Joshi and Mr. Suhas
Deokar i/b. Chetan Alai for respondents.
------------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 25, 2021
P.C.:-
Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Singhvi for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Shri Cama for the respondents.
2. The order under challenge by way of this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is passed below Exhibit U- 2 dated 14/10/2020 by the Industrial Court at Pune in Complaint ULP No. 126/2020.
3. In brief what was under challenge before the Industrial Court was lay of declared in respect of 167 employees with 1/5
3. wpst 98325-20.doc efect from 18o/8o/2020. The said notice is dated 17/8o/2020. The reason for the lay of is that because of economic slow down world over and further as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic the company has sufered huge losses and therefore because of this natural calamity the said notice for lay of.
4. Shri Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner - Union invited my attention to the impugned order. He then brought to my notice the provisions of Section 25M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short). It is his contention that the present notice indicating intention of the respondents to lay of has been issued without seeking permission of the appropriate Government. It is his contention that such a lay of can only be due to shortage power or due to natural calamity. Shri Singhvi submitted that the reason of natural calamity arising from the pandemic is spelt out only with a view to by pass the provisions of Section 25M of the said Act which requires the Management to seek prior permission of the appropriate Government. He submitted that on one hand the Management has stated that because of global economic slow down the orders of the customers have reduced drastically and then when there were some signs of improvements and the company was on the verge of getting over the economic slow 2/5
3. wpst 98325-20.doc down, the company says that Covid-19 pandemic adversely afected the production and business of the company. Shri Singhvi submitted that these two reasons are completely diferent and distinct and cannot go hand in hand. It is his submission that Covid-19 pandemic cannot be said to be a natural calamity within the meaning of Section 25M of the said Act thereby allowing the respondents to get over the statutory provision of seeking prior permission of the appropriate authority under Section 25M of the said Act.
5. Shri Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate urged that the Industrial Court committed an error in observing that the issue whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be regarded as a natural calamity for the purpose of Section 25M warrants fnal adjudication and in fact the same could have been decided at the interim stage for the purpose of interim reliefs. He therefore submitted that the Industrial Court should have allowed the application (Exhibit U-2) and stayed the efect and implementation of the notice dated 17/8o/2020 and directed the payment of full back-wages.
6. Shri Cama, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand invited my attention to the fndings recorded by the Industrial 3/5
3. wpst 98325-20.doc Court and submitted that the Industrial Court was justifed in holding that whether the Covid-19 is natural calamity and whether prior permission is necessary to be obtained to declare lay of is an issue which is required to be proved by leading oral evidence by the parties. He submitted that granting of interim relief would tantamount to allowing the main complaint itself fnally and therefore in his submission the view of the Industrial Court cannot be faulted.
7. I have gone through the order passed by the Industrial Court. The lay of notice is given by the respondents for the reason that because of Covid-19 pandemic the business of the company is adversely afected. It is a result of this natural calamity that the said notice for lay of is issued is the case of the respondents. I see no reason to fnd fault with the prima facie observation made by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has observed that the issue whether Covid-19 is natural calamity or whether prior permission is required to be obtained needs to be proved by oral evidence of the parties. I see no error of jurisdiction or perversity in the order passed by the Industrial Court so as to warrant interference.
4/5
3. wpst 98325-20.doc 8o. Needless to mention that the observations of the Industrial Court are obviously prima facie in nature. All contentions on merits are kept open. However, considering the nature of the controversy and the issue involved, in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the complaint itself needs to be decided expeditiously. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court is requested to decide the complaint itself as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from today.
9. The parties undertake to co-operate with the Industrial Court and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Digitally
signed by
Diksha
Diksha Rane
Rane Date:
2021.01.25 10. With these observations, the Petition is dismissed and 18:17:18 +0530 disposed of accordingly.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 5/5