Pendse, J.@mdashBoth these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment
as the disputes involved in both the petitions arise out of the same set of fact''s. The facts giving rise to filing of these two petitions are as follows.
2. Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. are the proprietors and publishers of newspapers, such as Times of India, Nav Bharat Times, Maharashtra
Times, Economic Times, etc. The Company employs 822 clerks, 421 employees designated as Working Journalists and 1146 workers. In June
1984 the employees owing allegiance to Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha, a trade Union (respondent No. 4 in Petition No. 1954 of 1984) resorted to
unfair labour practice, like go-slow, illegal strike etc. The members of the Union also put up placards and posters. As a result of the action of
respondent No. 4, the newspapers could not be published on June 12, 1984. On the same day the Company put up a notice requesting the
workers to call-off the illegal strike and other illegal practices and come back to work. The second notice was put on June 13, 1984, but the
workers persisted in the illegal strike. On June 14, 1984 the notice was given by the Company : under Standing Order No. 19 applicable to the
workmen. The Company also filed complaint (ULP) No. 963 of 1984 in the Industrial Court for a declaration that respondent No. 4 Union, as
also the workmen of the petitioner Company be declared guilty under Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ''U.L.P. Act''). The Industrial Court granted an interim injunction restraining the workmen from
resorting to unfair labour practices. The various publications of the Company could not be published inspite of the injunction order between June
12, 1984 and July 4, 1984.
On June 16, 1984 the third notice was issued by the Company informing the workers of the injunction and advising to give up the illegal activities.
In answer to this third notice, respondent No. 4 Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court seeking a declaration that the Company is guilty
of unfair labour practices, and secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The ad-interim injunction was subsequently vacated. On August 11, 1984
the Company, realising that it has suffered a loss of Rs. 1.65 crores due to non-publication of various daily news-papers and the weeklies, issued
notice reciting that the strike resorted to by the workers is illegal and the workers would not receive their wages. The Company made it clear that
the strike was in violation of Section 24(1)(a) of the U.L.P. Act. The Company also instituted Suit No. 2009 of 1984 in this Court seeking an
injunction restraining the workers from indulging in incidents of violence and assault on managerial and loyal workers and the injunction was
accordingly granted.
3. On August 21, 1984, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, served show-cause notice on the Company to explain why the Company should not
be prosecuted under Sections 25-O and 25-R of the Industrial Disputes Act for closing of the establishment without taking prior permission of the
Government. The Company filed a detailed reply on August 28, 1984 pointing out that the Company had not closed the establishment but had
merely temporarily suspended the work because of the illegal activities of the workers. The Company further pointed out that the work will be
resumed provided the workers give an undertaking that they would give normal work, observe discipline and give normal production. Inspite of the
reply, the State Government threatened to proceed with the hearing of the show-cause notice and thereafter Writ Petition No. 1954 of 1984 was
filed in this Court on September 17, 1984. By this petition the Company seeks writ of mandamus directing the State Government and the
Commissioner of Labour to withdraw and cancel the impugned notice dated August 21, 1984.
4. Petition No. 1954 of 1984 came up for admission before me on September 24, 1984 and at that time counsel appearing for the Government
made a statement that the petitioners would be heard by the Secretary on October 8, 1984 and the orders would be passed by October 10,
1984, and thereupon the petition was adjourned to October 12, 1984. The parties appeared before the Secretary on October 8, 1984, but the
Secretary declined to proceed with the hearing on the ground that he was not authorised. In view of this position, the petition was admitted on
October 12, 1984 and the hearing of the show-cause notice issued by the State Government was stayed.
5. in the meanwhile, on September 18, 1984, two workmen journalists, M.J. Kamalakar and Tyrone C.D'' souza and the two Unions, Bombay
Union of Journalists and Maharashtra union of Working Journalists, filed Writ petition No. 1968 of 1984 claiming a declaration that the closure of
the Company was in contravention of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. The working Journalists and their Unions also sought a direction
to the State Government that civil and criminal action should be adopted against the Company and the Company should be directed to pay the
wages of the working journalists for the period of wrongful closure. The petition was also admitted and was directed to be heard with the petition
filed by the Company, and that is how both the petitions are placed before me for hearing.
6. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company, submitted that subsequent to filing of the petition the members of respondent
No. 4 Union had realised their mistake and had given undertaking sought by the Company and have resumed the work. The workers had
undertaken to do normal work, to given normal production and observe discipline, and as all the workers, including the workers of respondent
No. 4. Union, had given undertaking that the Management had commenced publication. Shri Desai points out that in view of these subsequent
developments, the dispute between Company and the workers has come to an end. The learned counsel urged that the show-cause notice issued
by respondent No. 3 was on a misconception that the company has proceeded to permanently close its establishment and thereby violated
provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act prescribes that the employer, who intends
to close down an undertaking, shall submit for permission at least 90 days before the date of intended closure is to be effected, an application to
the appropriate Government stating therein the reasons intended for closure of the undertaking. Section 25-O then thereafter sets out the steps to
be taken by the State Government for disposal of that application. The show-cause notice was issued to the Company on the footing that the
Company had closed down the undertaking or an industrial establishment, and Shri Desai seriously disputes this assumption of respondents 1 to 3.
The learned counsel points out that the notice dated August 11, 1984, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit ''L'' to Petition No. 1954 of 1984, was
issued in exercise of powers under Standing Order No. 19 as far as the workmen were concerned, Standing Order No. 11 (d) as far as the
Journalists were concerned and Standing Order Nos. 22(1) and 25 as far as the clerks were concerned. The learned counsel invited my attention
to this notice and the bare perusal of the same makes it clear that the Company had decided to temporarily suspend its work because of the
violence and the illegal activities resorted by the workers belonging to respondent No. 4 Union. The notice clearly recites that intimidation, threats
of physical assault and being removed from the work forcibly by activists of Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha had made it impossible for the loyal
employees to perform their duty. What is stated thereafter is required to be set out:
With a view to prevent any sabotage or any other incidents, it has been decided that only those employees who are prepared to work and to give
an undertaking to the Company in the form kept in the security office at the main gate will be permitted to come inside the premises. Even in their
case if they are not doing any work and/or their presence does not ensure production of the Company''s publications, they will be asked to go out,
besides their being entitled to wages.
The notices above will be withdrawn partially or otherwise depending upon the willingness of the employees to resume production. It is hereby
made clear that this is not a Notice of lock-out and this is only a closure under the company''s standing orders. During the closure, however, no
employees affected by the closure will be entitled to wages.
The company reserves the right to exempt individual employees or class of employees from the effect of the closure. The company hereby exempts
for the time being the security staff, watch and ward and fire brigade personnel. The company will also in individual cases on their personal
application exempt them from the closure provided their services are considered essential"".
The plain reading of this notice makes it clear that the assumption of respondent No. 3 and the State Government that the Company intended to
permanently close down the undertaking was wholly untenable. The submission of Shri Desai that what the Company intended to do was to
temporarily suspend the work deserves acceptance. It is, therefore, obvious that the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act are
not at all attracted and the action of the State Government in issuing the show-cause notice is wholly untenable. I have perused the Standing Order
No. 19 and bare reading of it makes it clear that it provides for temporary suspension of work of establishment and not its permanent closure. Shri
Kochar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 Union, accepted that all the workers have given an undertaking and have
rejoined the duties and the dispute between the employees and the Company no longer survives. In these circumstances, in my judgment, it is
necessary to quash the show cause notice served by respondent No. 3 on the Company.
7. Shri Gurusahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Working Journalists and the two Unions of the Journalists, submitted at the outset
that the two Unions are no longer supporting the two individual working journalists who are petitioners Nos.1 and 2 in Writ petition No. 1968 of
1984. Shri Gurusahani in fact has taken out Chamber Summons No. 100 of 1985 for deleting the names of petitioners Nos.3 and 4, that is the two
Unions of Working Journalists. The Chamber Summons was taken out as the two unions have filed ULP Complaint No. 7 of 1985 u/s 28(i) of the
U.L.P. Act before the Industrial Court and in that complaint it is claimed that the Company had declared a lockout and had not closed the
establishment Shri Gurusahani submits that the two individual journalists do not accept this claim and therefore the two unions should be deleted
from the array of petitioners. It is not possible to grant the relief sought in Chamber Summons No. 100 of 1985 as the two individual journalists
have not served the copy of the Chamber Summons on the two Unions. Shri Gurusahani submits that the closure of the establishment, so far as the
working journalists were concerned, was clearly in contravention of the Standing Orders. The learned counsel relied upon Standing Order No.
6(5) of the Standing Orders for Working Journalists published in 1966. This Standing Order prescribes that the management may close clown any
department or departments or section or sections of a department after giving one month''s general notice to the working journalists concerned.
The learned counsel urged that as the Standing Order clearly provides for service of one month''s general notice, it was not open for the Company
to close down the establishment without any such notice to the working journalists, and therefore, provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial
Disputes Act are violated. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. What is contemplated by Standing Order No. 6(5)
is the permanent closure of the department or section. As found hereinabove, the Company had not closed down any department or section but
has merely suspended the work thereof for a short duration and that too because of the violence and the illegal activities adopted by the workmen.
Shri Gurusahani very strenuously urged that the working journalists had not indulged in violence or illegal activities, and therefore, the Company
should not have punished them. The submission overlooks that the management cannot run the establishment unless the workmen give up the illegal
activities and in such circumstances normally innocent people, who had nothing to do with violence or illegal activities also suffer. The management
could not permit the working journalists to attend to the work when the Company was unable to publish any newspaper. Shri Gurusahani also
submitted that as the working journalists had not indulged in any unfair labour practice the management was wrong in refusing to pay wages to the
working journalists. I am afraid this question cannot be agitated in the present proceedings, as the working journalists'' Unions have already
instituted proceedings before the Industrial Court in that respect.
8. Finally, Shri Gurusahani submitted that the management was clearly wrong in compelling the working journalists to give the undertaking. The
learned counsel urged that there is no provision, either under the Standing Orders or under any Labour Laws, which demands that the working
journalists should furnish undertaking before joining the duty. I am not inclined to investigate this aspect in the present case as it is not in dispute that
all the 400 and odd working journalists have given the undertaking and have joined back the duty long before. Shri Gurusahani submitted that the
two working journalists, who have filed Petition No. 1968 of 1984, have given the undertaking without prejudice to their rights, and therefore, the
question should be determined. I am not inclined to do so in the present proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the case which have
transpired subsequent to filing of the petitions. In my judgment, the two working journalists are not entitled to any relief and their petition must fail.
9. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 1954 of 1984 succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case
there will be no order as to costs.
Writ Petition No. 1968 of 1984 fails and the rule is discharged, but without any order as to costs.
Chamber Summons No. 100 of 1985 taken out in Writ Petition No. 1968 of 1985 does not survive and is dismissed without any order as to
costs.