The Kerala High Court has delivered a pivotal ruling clarifying the limits of Labour Court jurisdiction in industrial disputes involving alleged sham closures. The judgment underscores that tribunals cannot infer or expand the scope of a reference to adjudicate foundational questions of closure authenticity unless explicitly framed by the appropriate government. This decision reasserts the statutory boundaries of adjudicatory authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and has profound implications for employers and unions alike.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Lunar Rubbers and Viking Rubbers, operated manufacturing units in Idukki, Kerala, producing hawai sheets and straps. In early 2016, following failed wage negotiations with the Kerala Head Load and Timber Workers Union (KTUC), the companies issued closure notices effective 26.04.2016, citing financial non-viability. The union contended the closure was a pretext to retaliate against union members, alleging that while nine workers were terminated, others were transferred to sister companies under common ownership.
Procedural History
- March 2016: Closure notices issued to workers and the Labour Department.
- April 2016: Factory licence cancelled by Director of Factories.
- September 2019: Labour Court issued an award holding the closure was a sham, ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service.
- 2020: Petitions filed under Article 226 before the Kerala High Court challenging the award.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Labour Court’s award on grounds of jurisdictional overreach, arguing that the reference only concerned retrenchment, not the genuineness of closure. The respondents sought enforcement of the award, asserting that the closure was a colourable exercise to evade statutory obligations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim that the closure was a sham or colourable, when the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was limited to the justification of retrenchment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Workmen of Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd., and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal to argue that once closure is established, the motive of management is irrelevant unless the establishment continues operating elsewhere. They contended that Section 25FFF only entitles workers to compensation, not reinstatement, and that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by treating sham closure as an incidental matter. They emphasized that Section 10(4) strictly confines adjudication to the points referred.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the closure was a facade, supported by documentary evidence showing continued operations through sister concerns. They cited Ariane Organochem Pvt. Ltd. v. Wyeth Employees Union to assert that the Labour Court was entitled to examine the bona fides of closure when evidence suggested fraud. They claimed the reference, though framed as retrenchment, inherently encompassed the true nature of the dispute, and that substantial justice required the award to stand.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of Section 10 and Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that the Government’s role in framing a reference is administrative, not adjudicatory. The Court observed that while the Government need not conclusively establish the existence of a dispute, the reference must accurately reflect the real controversy between the parties.
"Where the core dispute pleaded by the workmen is that the alleged closure of the establishment is sham, colourable or illusory, but the reference is framed on a different and narrower premise, on retrenchment and its remedy, the reference fails to reflect the true lis and suffers from a jurisdictional defect going to its root."
The Court distinguished between the existence of jurisdiction and its exercise, citing Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat and Organon India Limited v. State of West Bengal. It held that even if parties consent to broader adjudication, the Labour Court cannot assume jurisdiction beyond the reference. The Court rejected the argument that the Labour Court could treat sham closure as an incidental issue, noting that such a determination goes to the very foundation of the dispute.
The Court further clarified that Section 25FFF provides for compensation only, computed as if retrenched, but does not import the substantive remedies of Section 25F, such as reinstatement or back wages. The Labour Court’s direction to reinstate workers in unrelated sister concerns was held to be ultra vires, as those entities were not parties to the dispute under Section 18.
The Court emphasized that jurisdictional defects are incurable by consent or equity, and that the proper remedy is not to modify the award but to quash it and remit the matter for a fresh reference.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Kerala High Court quashed the Labour Court’s award, holding that the reference was jurisdictionally defective for failing to frame the issue of sham closure. The Court directed the appropriate Government to reframe the reference within two months to reflect the true dispute, after which the Tribunal may adjudicate afresh.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reference Must Mirror the Real Dispute
- Practitioners must ensure that the Government’s reference under Section 10 precisely captures the nature of the dispute - whether it is retrenchment, closure, lock-out, or sham closure.
- If the core allegation is fraud or concealment, the reference must explicitly state it; otherwise, any award on that issue is void ab initio.
Sham Closure Cannot Be Inferred
- Labour Courts cannot infer or expand a reference to include allegations of sham closure, even if evidence suggests it.
- Employers may challenge awards on jurisdictional grounds at any stage, even post-award, if the reference does not encompass the foundational issue.
Reinstatement Requires Explicit Authority
-
Reinstatement, back wages, and continuity of service are remedies under Section 25F for retrenchment, not closure.
-
No statutory provision permits transfer of workers to unrelated sister concerns; such directions are ultra vires unless the establishments are legally and functionally integrated and named as parties.
-
Where closure is genuine, compensation under Section 25FFF is the exclusive remedy.
-
Employers must document closure with official records (licence cancellation, audit reports, cessation of operations) to rebut allegations of sham closure.
-
Unions must file claims and seek references that explicitly allege sham closure to preserve their right to seek reinstatement.
