LexUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF WORKS & HOUSING, NEW DELHI ETC. versus D.C.M. LIMITED AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERN- MENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF WORKS & HOUSING, NEW DELHI ETC. v. D.C.M. LIMITED AND ORS. ETC. MARCH 13, 1990 ,;.. [RANGANATH MISRA, MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Delhi Development Authority Act-D.C. Mills Ltd.-Shifting ·Mill and redeveloping mill area for group housing and flatted facto- ries-Resolution No. 26-Implementation of. The respondent Delhi Cloth Mills bas a complex owr an area of 63 A B C. acres at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Gnaj, Delhi, which· is a non- conforming area and the industry of the kind in which the mill is engaged in was required to be shilled consequent upon the enforcement D · of Master Plan prepared by Delhi Development Authority under the Delhi Development Act, 1966, which plan amongst other things was to assign land use. The delhi Cloth Mills in September 1982, appruached the DDA and put forth a proposal for shifting the mill and for re- .developing the Mill area for group housing and flatted factories. The DDA by Resolution No. 26 agreed to the scheme to be implemented in E phases but it took care to examine the matter further from Delhi's economics point of view. In September 1983, the DDA turned down the request of the respondent for allotment of an alternate site in a con- forming area for shifting the mill. Thereupon the Mill applied to the Secretary, Labour /Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration for permission. to close down the Mill under Sec. 25(0) of the Industrial F Disputes Act, on the ground that the Mill could not be kept located in a ·non-coforming area as otherwise penal consequences would follow. On April 15, 1985, the request of the Mill was turned down by the Secre- tary, Labour /Labour Commissioner. Thereupon the Delhi Mill filed a writ petition before the High Court for direction that the DOA be directed to implement its resolution No. 26 dated Feb. 1, 1983. It may G be mentioned here that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, ODA had reviewed the situation and passed a fresh resolution No. 3 dated August 1, 1986 reviewing the earlier resolution dated Feb. 1, 1983 recalling the grant of approval with regard to the scheme propounded by the DCM. Thereafter DDA reiterated its Resolu- tion of August 1, 1986 by another resolution dated November 3, _1986. H 951 952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R. A The High Court quashed the two later resolutions and restored the ·--f resolution dated February 1, 1983. It took the view that the Mill could not be kept working in a non-conforming area as othern'ise it would attract penal action under the law after the lapse of three years from Jan. 18, 1986. Both Union of India and DDA have filed appeals in this Court by special leave against the High Court's order. In the meantime DCM filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court on March l, 1989 ordering closure of the Mill. Delhi Administration flied special leave petition in this Court against the said order and the Mill flied another speeial leave patition against the order of the High Court dated 3.3.1989 C extending time for grant of permission by the Lt. Governor for closure of the factory till March 30, 1989. When these matters reached bearing in this Court, DCM and its employees had reached an agreement in the matter of closure of the factory. The Special Leave Petitions were there- fore dismissed by thi.s Court; and on the file of this Court remained these two appeals. D Dismissing the appeals with a direction, this Court, HELD: The factory has been ordered to be closed and the emp- loyer and the employees have entered a settlement. The supposed basis for reviewing or recalling resolution dated February l, 1983 on the E basis of its affectation to the industry and economy of Delhi as also to the workmen has vanished. On this footing and on the events which 1 have come by, the challenge to the judgment and order of the High Court loses vigour. [956F-GJ Resolution No. 26 dated February l, 1983, approving the scheme ~ F as given by the DCM provided that the scheme had taken all ncessary safeguards and controls which would help triggering re-development and reltabilitation in the congested areas of the central core of the capital. [956G J Appeals dismissed conveying a direction that the DDA shall grant G to the DCM conditional approval subject to removal of the enumerated otijecti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.