9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82 under Rule 56AA. The question calls for interpretation in the appeal is relating to the term" `closed' referred to in the base clearance in the explanation in the said notification-which reads as below : "base clearance" - (a) in the case of a factory which had not remained closed for a period of more than 15 days at one time during the base period due to any reason.............. (b) In the case of factory which had remained closed for a period of more than 15 days at one time during the base period due to any reason..... 3. It was pleaded by the respondents that the fact of lock out was intimated to the Department. The lock out was effective from 25-9-1981 to the third shift of 21-10-1981. During the aforesaid period, the factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances, he would plead that this Bench may not follow the said decisions, but take an independent view. He contends that definition of closure in the Industrial Dispute Act may not be attracted because it calls for a permanent closure whereas the Notification in questions contemplates closure for a period of 15 days. Having regard to the objective of the notification, when the normal production and clearance is not noticed on account of strike or lock out or any other reason, they cannot be construed to be normal clearance in the base period and accordingly, the wording `closed' should be interpreted. 5. Shri Attar, the ld. advocate for the respondents produced before us the RG.I register showing production of motor vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guments do not persuade us to accept the appeal from the Revenue for the following reasons. In this case, though a lock out was declared, production of Motor vehicle parts and also of some vehicles has been noticed as reflected from the RG 1 records. Clearance of the excisable goods have also taken place during this period. Hence, it is not possible to conclude [xx] the factory was closed on account of the declared lock out. Moreover, Shri Attar also produced a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Labour Union v. B.V. Chavan and Others reported in 1985 1 S.C. Cases 312, wherein it has been observed, that in lock out, the employer refuses to continue to employ the workmen employed by him, even though the business activity was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
