JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2 By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the award dated 31.5.1984 passed by Industrial Tribunal IV, Agara in adjudication case no. 25 of 1983 so far it has not gone into the merits of the case and has not answered that the closure was real and bonafide and has not granted any relief to the workmen. By the award Labour Court has held that the closure of the concerned establishment from 2.5.1982 is real and bonafide.
3. It appears from the record that the concern M/s Satya Narain Glass Workers Station road, Firozabad was closed down w.e.f. 2.5.1982, On conciliation proceedings having failed the Govt. being satisfied that there existed an industrial dispute as to whether the closure was real and in good faith referred following matter of dispute to the Labour Court, Agra on 25.3.1983 where it was registered as adjudication case no. 25 of 1983. The reference is as under:
"Whether the closure of the concern by the employers w.e.f. 2.5.1982 is real and in good faith? If not, to benefits/reliefs all the workers affected by the said closure are entitled and with what details?"
4. The tribunal gave its award on 31.5.1984, which is impugned in the writ petition. The case set out on behalf of the workmen was that the alleged closure of the respondent company was in fact a lock out and not a closure. Moreover, there was no justification for the company to close undertaking. The only reason advanced by employer was that one of the partners of the company had suffered a heart attack. It is stated that the respondent company has also some other allied industrial undertakings, which have not been closed down on account of the heart attack suffered by one of the partners of the respondent company.
5. It was further pleaded that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the matter, in as much as the closure was real and the Tribunal could not look into the bonafide or motive of the employers in closing down the concern. It was also pleaded that the petitioner Trade Union had no locus standi to raise the dispute.
6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to consider the controversy in the case for the State Government had referred the matter whether the closure was in good faith and it had to record a finding that the closure was in good faith. It is always open to a Tribunal or a Labour Court to ascertain whether ' or not the employer has acted in good faith and once it comes to the conclusion that the acts of the employer were not in good faith it is always open to the Tribunal to grant appropriate relief to the workmen and the Tribunal misdirected itself on the question of its jurisdiction and also did not fully appreciate the implications of the judgments of various Courts that have been referred to in the paragraph in question.
7. It is vehemently argued by the petitioner that the closure was illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as prior permission had not been taken and it was against law hence question of bonafide or malafide does not arise. Section 6-W was inserted in the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and was enforced w.e.f. 3.8.1983. The reference in this case is dated 25.5.1983 much before Section 6-W was brought as statute. Hence it does not apply. The provisions of closure apply to an industrial establishment pertaining to an industry other than an industry referred to in sub clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than three hundred workers were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months.
8. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner that Labour Court has committed illegality on placing reference of the law settled by the Apex Court prior to the date of introduction of Section 6-W is incorrect as stated above M/s Satya Narain Glass Workers was closed on 2.5.1982 and even otherwise if the closure is bonafide as held by the Labour Court then the reasons or motive of the employer for closing down is irrelevant. Even otherwise, it is on record that the establishment had been closed down as the employer had suffered from Heart Attack and could not run business. Closures have been defined under Section (2) of sub-clause (cc) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as permanent closing down of the place of employment or part thereof. The finding of the Labour Court is that M/s Satya Narain Glass Works was totally closed from 2.5.1982 because Radha Raman got second heart attack and he was medically advised not to look after the business. Sri Bhagwan Das sathi had to concede that the employers' factory was closed as a fact from 2.5.1982 and that it was not a case of lock out.
9.The Labour Court on issue no. 3 has given a categorical finding that the employers concern was actually closed down from 22.5.1982 and that it was not closed with a view to victimize the workman. Labour Court further relied upon the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. 1983 (Vol-I) L.L.J. 232 S.C. in which observation was made that the reference was not in respect of the propriety or legality of the closure. The position that follows is that the Tribunal cannot determine whether the closure was bonafide or malafide. The Labour Court concluded that the employers concern was actually closed from 2.5.1982 and that it was real and bonafide.
10. It is further contended that the reference is in two parts. The first part of the reference has been decided in the affirmative. Therefore the second part of the reference does not arise. It would have arisen if the finding on the first part had been in the negative. Since the reference was decided against the worker, the Tribunal held that it could not go into question of relief's under the second part of the reference.
11. In Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Mazdoor Union, AIR 1957 S.C. 235, the Apex Court held that:-
"The entire scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act assumes that there is in existence an industry and then proceeds to provide for various steps being taken, when a dispute arises in that industry. Thus the provisions of the Act relating to lockout, strike, lay-off, retrenchment, conciliation and adjudication proceedings, the period during which the awards are to be in force, have meaning only if they refer to an industry, which is running, and not one which is closed.
The object of all labour legislation is firstly to ensure fair terms to the workmen and secondly to prevent disputes between employers and employees so that production might not be adversely affected and the larger interests of public might not suffer. Booth these objects again could have their fulfillment only in an existing and not a dead industry.
Where the business has been closed and it is either admitted or found that the closure is real and bonafide, any dispute arising with reference as held in M. Padmanabhe Ayyar v. State of Madras 1954-1 Lab L.J. 469 Mad thereto would fall outside the purview of the industrial Disputes Act and that will fortiori be so, if a dispute arises-if one such could be conceived-after the closure of the business between the quondam employer and employees.
12. The Labour Court has given specific finding of fact that the closure of respondent concern w.e.f. 22.5.1982 was real. The closure being bonafide and real, reference fell outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and could not have been referred. No relief could have been granted to the worker in a dead industry and it was rightly held by the Labour Court that it could not have gone into the question of relief under the reference. The closure in the instant case is a matter of fact and the industry does not exist since 1982. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.