INTRODUCTION

Definitions (1) Labour Unrest means dissatisfaction displayed by workers, often in the form of strikes, and sometimes violent disputes, etc, which disrupts normal business. OR (2) Simple meaning of Labour Unrest is :-

(A) Labour (a) Productive work, esp physical toil (hard and continuous work; exhausting labor or effort) done for wages. (b) The people, class, or workers involved in this, esp in contrast to management, capital, etc. (c) Difficult or arduous (hard) work or effort. (d) A particular job or task, esp of a difficult nature (e) To perform labour; work. (B) Unrest (a) Lack of rest. (b) A restless. (c) Troubled.

Meaning:
Labour unrest is a term used by employers or those generally in the business community to describe organizing and strike actions undertaken by labor unions, especially where labor disputes become violent or where industrial actions in which members of a workforce obstruct the normal process of business and generate industrial unrest are essayed. Such a conception of labor action was common in the United States in the nineteenth century, most prominently amongst mining interests in the American West, and remained common in the twentieth century CE amongst totalitarian states, such as the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, in which complete control of the working class is desired. Employers and employees go for lock-out and strike because wages is not given at time or increase in work. Strikes and lockouts is another important meaning in labour unrest they are as follows:

Lock-out:
A lockout is a temporary work stoppage or denial of employment during a labour dispute initiated for fine, for showing up, or a simple refusal of clocking in on the time clock. It is therefore reffered as antithesis of strike of a management of a company.this is different from strike in which the employee refuse to work . it is usually implemented by simply refusing to admit employees onto company premises, and may include actions such as changing locks and heiring security guards for the premises.

Causes:
A lockout is generally used to enforce terms of employment upon a group of employees during a dispute. A lockout can act to force unionized workers to accept changed conditions such as lower wages. If the union is asking for higher wages, or better benefits, an employer may use the threat of a lockout or an actual lockout to convince the union to back down.

Examples:
Ireland The Dublin Lockout (Irish: Frithdhnadh Mr Bhaile-tha-Cliath) was a major industrial dispute between approximately 20,000 workers and 300 employers which took place in Ireland's capital city of Dublin. The dispute lasted from 26 August 1913 to 18 January 1914, and is often viewed as the most severe and significant industrial dispute in Irish history. Central to the dispute was the workers' right to unionize. United States In the United States, under federal labor law, an employer may hire only temporary replacements during a lockout. In a strike, unless it is an unfair labor practice (ULP) strike, an employer may legally hire permanent replacements. Also, in many U.S. states, employees who are locked out

are eligible to receive unemployment benefits, but are not eligible for such benefits during a strike. For the above reasons, many American employers have historically been reluctant to impose lockouts, instead attempting to provoke a strike. However, as American unions have increasingly begun to resort to slowdowns rather than strikes, lockouts have become a more common tactic of many employers. Even as incidents of strikes are on the decline, incidents of lockouts are on the rise in the U.S. Recent notable lockout incidents have been reported in professional sports, notably involving Major League Baseball in the 1990 offseason, the National Basketball Association in the 1995 offseason, the 1996 offseason, and the 199899 and 201112 seasons, the National Hockey League in the 199495, 200405 and 2012-13 seasons, and the National Football League in the 2011 offseason. The controversial 2012 NFL referee lockout only involved referees and not players. In 2005, the NHL became the first major professional sports league in North America to cancel an entire season due to a lockout.

Australia:
On 8 April 1998, stevedoring company Patrick Corporation sought to restructure its operations for productivity reasons. In an industrial watershed event, it sacked all its workers and imposed a lockout on wharves around Australia. On 29 October 2011, Qantas Airways declared a lockout of all domestic employees in the face of ongoing union industrial action. This cancelled all flights, grounding the entire fleet for several days.

Strikes:
Strike action, also called labor strike, on strike or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes became important during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labor became important in factories and mines. In most countries, strike actions were quickly made illegal, as factory owners had far more political power than workers. Most western countries partially legalized striking in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Strikes are sometimes used to pressure governments to change policies. Occasionally, strikes destabilize the rule of a particular political party or ruler; in such cases, strikes are often part of a broader social movement taking the form of a campaign of civil resistance.

History:
Towards the end of the 20th dynasty, under Pharaoh Ramses III in ancient Egypt on 14 November 1152 BC, the artisans of the Royal Necropolis at Deir el-Medina organized the first known strike or workers' uprising in recorded history. The event was reported in detail on a papyrus at the time, which has been preserved, and is currently located in Turin. The strike is narrated by John Romer in Ancient Lives: The story of the Pharaohs' Tombmakers. The strike so terrified the Egyptian authorities, as such rebellion was virtually unheard of, that they gave in and raised their wages.

The use of the English word "strike" first appeared in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships. Official publications have typically used the more neutral words "work stoppage" or "industrial dispute". In 1917, the Mexican Constitution was the first national constitution that constitutionally guaranteed the right to strike[citation needed]. In 1937 there were 4,740 strikes in the United States.[6] This was the greatest strike wave in US labor history. This outburst of strikes occurred during a period of deep depression and massive unemployment. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in 1967 ensure the right to strike at Article 8.

Historical background:
Historian John Davies looks at the unrest at the beginning of the Labour movement in Wales. By the beginning of the 20th century, with only 10% of its population directly reliant upon agriculture, Wales was manifestly an industrial country. With a smaller middle class than its equally industrialized neighbors England and Scotland, Wales could convincingly be described as the world's first proletarian nation. By this time Wales had a long tradition of working-class protest. There was serious unrest in Tredegar in 1816 and, in the 1820s, the Scotch Cattle, a group seeking to create working-class unity through terror, were active in Monmouth shire. Much of the protest was aimed at the untrammeled power of the ironmasters who, in addition to being employers were also landlords, owners of truck shops and controllers of local government as it existed. In some cases they were also members of the local magistrates' bench. In 1831 Merthyr experienced the most serious uprising to occur in 19th century Britain. The uprising was in part the result of the instability created by agitation for parliamentary reform. However, its basic causes can be attributed to the highly distinctive character of the Welsh experience of industrialization; it culminates in the killing of at least 20 people outside Merthyr's Castle Hotel and the hanging of Richard Lewis (Dic Penderyn). The Chartist uprising of 1839 proved equally bloody. The Chartists, advocates of universal male suffrage, organized a march on Newport which was partly a demonstration and partly an attempt at revolution. It resulted in at least a score of deaths around the town's Westgate Hotel, and the deportation of its leaders - John Frost, the one-time mayor of Newport - among them.

The Big Strike:

Labour Unrest in the Great Depression Overview Although union activity usually grinds to a halt during periods of mass unemployment, picket lines were as common as bread lines in 1934. A million and a half workers took part in some two thousand strikes that year. They were emboldened by Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which guaranteed workers the right to form unions and bargain collectively over wages, hours, and conditions. The Act was part of President Franklin Roosevelt's liberal New Deal policies, but many employers saw it as a step toward Communism and brazenly resisted it. They waged murderous campaigns against farm workers in California, autoworkers in Toledo, truck drivers in Minneapolis, and textile workers throughout the country. This was the backdrop of a monumental showdown between ship owners and longshoremen on the West Coast. On May 9, 1934, 32,000 dockworkers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and other ports refused to load and unload ships under hiring and job conditions they deemed intolerable. They objected to the dreaded "shape up," where kickbacks and favoritism determined who got work; to "speed ups" that made accidents and injuries common occurrences; to brutal shifts that lasted twelve, twenty-four, and even thirty-six hours for no extra pay; and to the phony company union that permitted these abuses. Shippers tried to bring in non-union workers, but the strikers fought back. For two and a half months they battled bosses, "goons", police, red-baiters, and the National Guard, sparking an extraordinary four-day general, or sympathy, strike of all workers in San Francisco. Was the Revolution at hand? Was Roosevelt to blame? Where would this labor upsurge lead?

Objectives
This module invites an intensive study of the 1934 Pacific Coast waterfront strike and the documentary record it produced as a way to explore the broader social, political, economic, and cultural tensions of the New Deal era. It has five objectives: To convey the drama of the strike as a breaking story with contested causes and unforeseen consequences. To stimulate an analysis of issues and events from a variety of perspectives. To provide an opportunity to investigate the rise of organized labor and spread of industrial democracy as both a response and a spur to Roosevelt's New Deal. To encourage a reconsideration of the role of "reds" and red-baiters, women and minorities, and artists and musicians, as well as rank and file union members. To offer a structured way to interrogate and utilize primary sources.

Resources
The strike, like the Depression era itself, is fast receding from living memory as members of that generation pass on. Soon our understanding of those times will be based solely on the surviving documentary record. This module brings together five kinds of sources: written accounts, oral histories, photographs, artwork, and music. Each type of source provides a unique but partial window into the past. Together they can provide a deeper understanding of not just the strike but of the decade as a whole. Any American history textbook covering the Great Depression can provide sufficient background knowledge of the period to teach or use this module. However, below are four

secondary sources - three articles and one radio documentary - that try to put the strike in a broader context assess its legacy, highlight the role of African Americans, and profile its most charismatic figure, union leader Harry Bridges. For those who want more, a comprehensive list of books and videos on the strike and the union can be found in the instructor's annotation.

Times of India newspaper article on Labour Unrest:

Labour unrest at Tata Steel plant, 5 shot at
Dec 25, 2012, 02.32 AM

JAMSHEDPUR: Five contract labourers of Tata Steel were injured when security guards fired at them during a clash at the gate of Burma Mines on Monday. Twenty security guards were injured as well. According to witnesses, the clash took place after workers were stopped from taking their bicycles from the plant premises. Angry workers threw stones at the guards and torched vehicles parked at the entry gate, prompting the guards to fire in order to disperse them. Besides five workers, a local photo-journalist was severely wounded. Senior superintendent of police Akhilesh Jha said, "Although the police reached the site to control the situation, the guards fired and injured a few people." He said the police were investigating the matter. Regretting the violence, Tata Steel held miscreants responsible. "They threw stones at the guards, jumped over the gate and tried to vandalize company property. When confronted by the guards they vandalized the vehicles outside the gate and torched them. The guards then fired at them to disperse them," said a top Tata Steel executive Sanjiv Paul. The company had started bus service in the plant for contract workers for the past one year and bicycles were barred from entering the plant, Paul said. "However, at the auction yard gate (Burma Mines gate), this facility was introduced only a week ago and bicycles were prohibited," he said. He said victims will be compensated in accordance with the law. The wounded are in hospital. "The five workers got splinter injuries but are out of danger," said doctors attending on them. Former Jharkhand labour minister and MLA Raghuvar Das sought a judicial probe into the violence. Expressing concern over repeated clashes between contract workers and company guards, Das said the district administration is equally responsible for Monday's clash. "Had the factory inspector and deputy labour commissioner been sincere in their duty, the incident wouldn't have occurred," he said.

Labour unrest a simmering problem in Assam's tea gardens

By Manimugdha S SharmaManimugdha S Sharma, TNN | Jan 4, 2013, 04.31 AM IST
GUWAHATI: Lush green tea gardens on both sides of National Highway 37 in Assam make for a pretty sight. But they hide within them a 200-year-old story of oppression: a story that has never been documented or given much importance in independent India. Yet it is this oppression that has led to labour unrest and resulted in some of the most gruesome killings in the area, the latest being that of planter Mridul Kumar Bhattacharya and his wife Rita at Konapathar tea estate in Tinsukia district. Assam has 800 tea gardens, which employ 22 lakh people either directly or indirectly. The wages that the labourers get are meagre, but they get other benefits such as subsidized rations, free primary schooling of their children, and health benefits. However, this is clearly not enough to satisfy the growing aspirations of a community that is utterly marginalized and feels alienated in a land that has been their home for two centuries. It is this socio-economic struggle that occasionally goes out of control. Six years ago, owner of Govindapur tea estate in Golaghat district, Rupak Gogoi, was lynched and his body burnt by labourers. In the 1990s, the owner of Socklating tea estate in Jorhat district, Gerala Kalita, was killed along with his family by angry labourers. And now, the recent barbaric killing of the Bhattacharya couple has shaken the tea-growing community in the state. "There is an urgent need to provide hotline services in tea garden districts so that security forces can react quickly to trouble. We are going to approach the government soon to make such arrangements on priority," says tea planter Bidyananda Barkakoty who is also the chairman of North Eastern Tea Association. A look at the region's history gives an insight into the root of the problem. The British had to get labourers from outside as the Assamese were unwilling to work in the tea gardens. The locals came to view the tea industry as an instrument of oppression and refused to accept the labourers as their own. "These people feel they have been left behind in the journey of progress. Unrest is bound to happen," says Delhi-based Anirudh Goswami who grew up in a tea estate in Upper Assam and has seen life in a tea garden from close quarters. It's not surprising, adds Goswami, that labour lines today are a scene of depression. "Even though some companies like Williamson Magor and Tata Tea have been improving the lot of the workers, many others have simply not bothered," he says. Elsewhere in north Bengal too, the situation isn't any better. The Dalmore tea estate in Birpara, Jalpaiguri, was abandoned by the management four months ago after labourers beat up an assistant manager and a driver. The management was planning to come back, but the murder in Assam has prompted them to seek greater security as a pre-condition for returning. Clearly,

trouble continues to brew in tea country. (With inputs from Pinak Priya Bhattacharya in Darjeeling and Naresh Mitra in Guwahati)

Factory closed after labour unrest

RISHRA (HOOGHLY): Memories of militant trade unionism of the 1970s and 80s came alive on Tuesday(July13, 2011) as labour unrest at a Rishra factory led to its closure, leaving the future of 2,000 workers uncertain. The management of the Hindustan National Glass Industries Limited issued the suspension of work for an indefinite period after violence erupted on the factory premises over a wage revision demand for casual workers. While permanent labourers receive a daily wage of Rs 164, casual labourers receive Rs 104 for the same job. Protesting against the company's anti-labour policies, SUCI's trade-union wing, UTUC, triggered the violence. "They pelted stones at police personnel on duty and tried to force their way into the factory. Once they gained entry, they went on the rampage, damaging office furniture and machines. This is something we can never accept," said Serampore SDPO Konkon Prasad Barui. Barui said that two SUCI leaders had met him and promised a peaceful agitation, but after they managed to gain entry they just went berserk. However, SUCI leader Santosh Bhattcharjee said, "It is pointless to put the blame squarely on SUCI. There were other trade unions like INTUC and CITU in the agitation. Moreover, we were far away from the factory. It is a blatant lie that we engineered any vandalism." On Sunday, some labourers had assaulted company's senior manager Ajay Majumdar, after which the management lodged an FIR against 31 labourers and issued a notice prohibiting their entry into the factory run by the Somani group.

DNA newspaper article on Labour Unrest

Air India, Indian Airline unions threaten protest
Published: Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011, 1:04 IST By Naveeta Singh | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA On Tuesday 10 associations and unions of national carrier Air India (AI) and erstwhile Indian Airline (IA) wrote to the civil aviation minister asking him for an appointment within a week to sort out their issues. They also said that if the ministry does not respond to their request they will be forced to go on a nationwide protest which can be in any form. The days of labour unrest in AI are not over yet. We have asked the honourable aviation minister to meet us within a week for a dialogue over various issues including salary payment and turnaround plan for the airline, said a member of the AI Cabin Crew Association (AICCA).

We havent decided on the course of protest yet but it can be anything right from wearing black bands or even strike, he said. This is for the first time that 33,000 employees of both the merged airlines AI and IA have come together and want a dialogue from the minister. We want the ministry to assure us that our salaries will be paid on time. Because the airline is in a mess due to management fault and not because of us, said a member of the Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA). The employees have not got their salaries for the month of May yet. The money that was paid by the government to pay us was diverted by the airline to make payments towards fuel charges, etc, said another union member. IA pilots have not received their performance linked incentive (PLI) right from the month of March till now. The PLI constitutes 60% of the pay package of the IA pilots as they are paid on hourly basis. The minister being a trade union leader will understand that the turnaround of a company also needs the employee support. We have lost faith in the management, he said.

International Labour Unrest

China factory unrest a fresh headache for Foxconn
TAIYUAN, China | Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:28am EDT (Reuters) - A brawl at a Foxconn factory that disrupted production at Apple's main China supplier for 24 hours highlights regimented dormitory life and thuggish security as major sources of labor tension in China. While unrest often flares in China as low-paid workers agitate for better pay and conditions, the conflict at Foxconn's Taiyuan facility in northern China was notable for its scale and severity, even if not directly related to shop-floor conditions.

It marked a blow to Apple's top supplier as it ramps up production to meet orders for the iPhone 5 and seeks to rehabilitate its image after a labor audit this year found flaws. Foxconn does not say which of its plants supply Apple but an employee told Reuters that the Taiyuan plant was among those that assembled and made parts for the iPhone 5. Some workers said they were making the iPhone 4s and some reported an increase in production targets of about 20 percent since June.

Details of the melee remain sketchy as police and company officials investigate, but employees interviewed by Reuters said tension between workers and security guards boiled over on Sunday evening after a worker was severely beaten. That led to thousands joining the fracas and about 40 people were injured, according to Foxconn and Chinese media, while thousands of police were deployed to quell the unrest. A 19-year-old worker in hospital with back and hand injuries said he was angered by the rough security guards and a culture of managers cursing workers. "It doesn't matter who you are, you shouldn't curse people like that," said the worker surnamed Liu. "They do it all the time. If it happens over a long time, it builds up and of course it makes people angry and they go crazy like that." The movement of workers from other Foxconn plants to Taiyuan may have contributed to friction between groups of laborers facing heavier workloads and crowded dormitories as production intensified to meet Apple targets, rights groups and workers said. It was quiet on Tuesday outside the factory, with police keeping watch. Gates had been torn off hinges and windows smashed, and a voice on a loop recording broadcast over a loud speaker appealed for people to maintain order. "There were thousands of bystanders and they just couldn't control it," said a 29-year-old worker who would only give his surname Xiang. "It was just smash and destroy." Foxconn Technology Group of Taiwan, the trading name of Hon Hai Precision Industry Co, is the world's largest contract maker of electronics for global brands such as Hewlett Packard, Nokia and Dell as well as Apple. Foxconn said on Tuesday the one-day closure would not disrupt supplies from the factory where 79,000 people work. "PRODUCT SHORTAGES, PRESSURE" The company said the unrest was triggered by a personal dispute that spun out of control, rather than conditions in the factory. Louis Woo, a Foxconn spokesman, said the security personnel involved were under contract with a third party at a privately managed factory dormitory, adding that their attitude was "not too good". In the past, security personnel working for Foxconn have been known for bullying and as tough enforcers of efforts to stop theft, including the pilfering of Apple prototypes, with workers being subjected to stringent body searches. In 2010, guards working for the company roughed up a Reuters journalist outside a factory in Shenzhen.

Several Taiyuan workers said some tension had arisen because of the deployment of workers from other Foxconn plants to bolster manpower in Taiyuan, with friction between workers from different provinces including Henan and Shandong. "This happens in many companies, especially big ones," Woo said of the movement of workers around the country. "We have 1.1 million workers in total in China, the advantage is we can mobilize our workers when one business line suddenly needs more people. Relocation happens very often." Some labor groups say ultimate responsibility for strains rests with Apple, which they say puts profit above workers' welfare despite pledges to cut overtime hours and improve workers' livelihoods. "The whole Apple production chain has problems," said Li Qiang, with the New York-based China Labor Watch, that has scrutinized Apple and Foxconn for years. "Its sales and marketing strategy involves launching a product suddenly, without maintaining much inventory ... so the subsequent product shortages help build demand, but also place extreme pressures on workers." Foxconn has begun a series of reforms after facing accusations of poor conditions and mistreatment of workers. Li Qiang, the labor activist, said workers at Foxconn's giant plant in Zhengzhou, in Henan province, were largely working on the iPhone 5, and were also facing great pressure, with 70 hours a week common, despite pledges by Apple and Foxconn to cap work at 60 hours. (Reporting by Michael Martina and Max Duncan in TAIYUAN and Clare Jim in TAIPEI; additional reporting by Chris Buckley and Sisi Tang; Writing by James Pomfret; Editing by Robert Birsel and Ken Wills)

Case laws:
Excel Wear Case: A Company Law Perspective By Sahil Shah, Student, Gujarat National Law University, Gujarat

INTRODUCTION
As the legal process causes birth of a company, so is its death. In several ways, a company's life may be brought to an end. The right of the members to pass a resolution to wind up the company cannot be taken away by any of the provisions in the article nor can it be interfered with by the Court through an injunction or otherwise. It is a statutory right of the members of the company. However, this right was curtailed unreasonably and arbitrarily through the impugned provisions Sections 25-O & 25-R of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 whereby the government was empowered to refuse an application for closing down the business without even recording reasons for the same. Hence these impugned provisions were challenged in Excel Wear v. Union of India. The Excel Wear case is related to the right of closure of business (whether closure of business could be refused merely on the ground that the workers would become unemployed) and compensation to the workers on closure of the business. Though, the concept of voluntary winding up has not been expressly stated in this case, members voluntary winding up is obviously a part of the right of the employer to close his business. Hence in this article, it has been my endeavour to analyse the Excel Wear case in a company law perspective.

FACTS of the Excel Wear Case

In this case, four writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Ss. 25-O and 25-R of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Act) were filed.One of the writ petitions had been filed by Excel Wear, a registered partnership firm. Excel Wear had a factory at Bombay where it manufactured garments for exports, and wherein about 400 workmen were employed. It was the petitioners case that the relation between the Excel Wear management and its employees started deteriorating from the year 1974 and had become worse from 1976. From Aug. 1976 the workmen became very militant, aggressive, violent, indulged in unjustifiable or illegal strikes and the labour trouble in the factory became of an unprecedented nature. Excel Wear, finding it difficult, to carry on the business of the factory, served a notice on the State Government of Maharashtra, for previous approval of the intended closure of the undertaking in accordance with Section 25-O (1) of the Act. However, the State Government refused to grant the approval. Another writ petition was filed by Acme Manufacturing Co. Ltd., who was obliged to decide to close down the undertaking due to huge losses incurred by them on account of low productivity, serious labour unrest and indiscipline resulting in various incidents of assaults or the like. The Company, therefore, applied to the State Government of Maharashtra on May 2, 1977 under S. 25-O (1) of the Act for approval of the intended closure, but the State Government refused. The other two writ petitions were also of a similar nature.

Analysis of the JUDGEMENT delivered by the Court

The main issues before the Supreme Court were 1) whether A.19(1)(g) also included a fundamental right to close down a business? 2) And if there is such a right, then whether the restrictions imposed by Ss.25-O and 25-R of the Act, which in essence required a prior approval by the government for closure of business, are reasonable or not?

1. With regards to the inherent right to carry on business

The Apex Court in this case relied upon the same case of M/s Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and held that the right to carry on any business includes a right to start, carry on or close down any undertaking and the payment of compensation to the employees are not condition precedents to the closure of business. The Court in the instant case stated in a negative form that it is wrong to say that an employer has no right to close down a business once he starts it. If he has such a right, as obviously he has, it cannot but be a fundamental right embedded in the right to carry on any business guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court observed that the owner cannot be asked to part with them or destroy the properties and business assets invested by not permitting him to close down the undertaking. In a given case for his mismanagement of the undertaking resulting in bad relation with the labour or incurring recurring losses the undertaking may be taken over by the State. It will be consistent with the object of making India a Socialist State. But not to permit the employer to close down is essentially an interference with his fundamental right to carry on the business.

1.1 Interest of the employees on closure of business

The Apex Court appreciated the fact that the employees are adversely affected and has to face a lot of hardships whenever there is any closure of business. The Court also relied upon the observations made by the Court in M/s Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India that "Closure of an industrial undertaking involves termination of employment of many employees, and throws them into the ranks of the unemployed, and it is in the interest of the general public that misery resulting from unemployment should be redressedretrenchment compensation was intended to give the workmen some relief and to soften the rigour of hardship which retrenchment brings in its wake when the retrenched workman is suddenly and without his fault thrown on the streets, to face the grim problem of unemployment.Loss of service due to closure stands on the same footing as loss of service due to retrenchment, for in both cases, the employee is thrown out of employment suddenly and for no fault of his and the hardships which he has to face are, whether unemployment is the result of retrenchment or closure of business, the same." In case of retrenchment only a specified number of workmen lose their employment while in closure all the workmen become unemployed. However, the Court also held that just because the employees become unemployed, it cannot be used as a justification for not allowing the employer to close down his business when it becomes unprofitable and unpractical to run the same.

2) With regards to the constitutionality of the impugned provisions

The Supreme Court held Ss. 25-O and 25-R to be constitutionally invalid, in violation of A.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that the impugned provisions constitute unreasonable restrictions on the right of closure of business, which is a part of the freedom to carry on business as guaranteed by A.19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Court also referred to the observations made in the case of Narendra Kumar v. Union of India[7] that "In applying the test of reasonableness, the Court has to consider the question in the background of the facts and circumstances under which the order was made, taking into account the nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied by such law, the ratio of the harm caused to individual citizens by the proposed remedy, to the beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to the general public. It will also be necessary to consider in that connection whether the restraint caused by the law is none than was necessary in the interests of the general public." The Court observed that it is highly unreasonable to achieve the object of maintaining production of the commodity by compelling the employer not to close down in public interest for maintaining production. The Court also observed that in case of bona fide closures, though the reasons given by the employers are correct, adequate and sufficient, yet the permission to close might be refused on ground of public interest. Hence the law is unconstitutional as it permits the authority to pass a capricious, whimsical and one-sided order.

IMPLICATIONS of the Case

Excel Wear case is a landmark case on the Companys inherent right of closing down its business. If the Court in this case had not recognised the employers right to close down his business and had upheld the impugned provisions, then the Companies would have been at mercy of the whims and fancies of the State. It would have discouraged businessmen even to start their business, as a fear that they would be forced to carry on their business even if it was incurring heavy losses would have constantly lurked in their minds. The business environment would have been suffocated under the pretext of socialism. The license raj would have prevailed as the closure of the business could be refused without assigning any reasons to it. Upholding of the impugned provisions would have adversely affected the right of the members voluntary winding up. The voluntary winding up could have been denied on the whims and fancies of the government. The Court in this case had recognised that the workers on the closing down of business would be put in considerable difficulty. But the Court at the same time held that refusing closure of business just because workers would become unemployed is an unreasonable restriction on the right to close down business (inspite of insertion of the word Socialism in the Preamble by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976) as in every closure of business workers are bound to lose their jobs and that non-closure of business was not an appropriate remedy for unemployment. The Court held that the workers should be paid compensation on closing down of the business. This right of payment of the workers has been recognised in S.529-A of the Companies Act, which provides that the workers shall rank pari passu with the secured creditors and above the government, for recovering their legitimate claims.

VOLUNTARY WINDING UP
Voluntary winding up means winding up by the members or creditors without any intervention of the court. There are two types of voluntary winding up procedures: a. Members voluntary winding up b. Creditors voluntary winding up

Members voluntary winding up: According to S.488 of the Companies Act, members voluntary winding up is possible when the company is solvent and is able to pay its liabilities and a declaration of solvency has to be made by the directors. On passing of the winding up resolution the company shall cease to do business, unless it is a beneficial winding up. S.487 of the Companies Act, which provides the concept of beneficial, winding up, embodies the principle that the object of the winding up is to realize the assets, pay off the liabilities and distribute the surplus as expeditiously as possible. And hence it contemplates carrying on the business except to the extent necessary for beneficial winding up of the company.

CONCLUSION
After analysis of the Excel Wear case and the related company law provisions, it can be said that the right of the members of the company of voluntary winding up and the right of the workers to compensation has been aptly balanced. The term Socialism being stated in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, it is a duty of the Welfare Indian State to provide a solution to the problem of unemployment faced by the workers. At the same time the right of the businessmen to close down their business (and in particular the members right of voluntary winding up) has to be protected. The Apex Court in Excel Wear case by holding the impugned provisions as unconstitutional has rightly prevented the businessmen from being forced to implore to the government for permission to close down their business which could have been easily denied by the government arbitrarily and without any reason.

Aims and Objectives

Labour unrest puts focus on laws TNN Jun 28, 2010, 12.47am IST
CHENNAI: With most multinational corporations (MNCs) operating in the state refusing to accept trade unions, Tamil Nadu is mulling a new law, along the lines of Maharashtra and West Bengal, to make it mandatory for companies to recognize trade unions. The state labour department will soon form a committee to look into labour laws. It will also depute a team of joint commissioners of labour to visit West Bengal and Maharashtra to study their labour models and submit a report within three to four months, labour secretary Prabhakar Rao told The Times of India. At present, TN laws do not mandate compulsory recognition of any trade union in a company. Multinationals prefer to manage labour relations through 'works committees ' which have representatives from various departments in the company, but the committees are sometimes seen as merely safeguarding the management's interest, resulting in more friction. Industrial areas across the state have been in ferment in recent times. Last September, some labourers at Pricol's Coimbatore plant killed the vice-president following a strike over pay and other disputes. In the last year alone, MNCs such as Nokia and Ford have faced strikes or labour unrest. The state's biggest investor, Hyundai Motor India Ltd, has faced several strikes by members of Hyundai Motor India Employees Union, backed by CITU, which claims to have more support from employees than the 'works committee' put in place by the company. In January, Nokia employees at its plant in Sriperumbudur went on strike to protest against the suspension of over 50 workers following a disagreement with the management. "We are verifying models in West Bengal and Maharashtra. In Maharashtra, the labour unions with the most members get recognized, while in West Bengal, unions are recognised through a secret ballot system. In places like Karnataka and Haryana, which are also quite industrialised, there are no such labour provisions yet they are not facing any problems. We will look at all these issues and frame suitable guidelines," the labour secretary said. Once the report is filed, the state will take an appropriate decision, he added. However, officials of some companies say forced recognition of trade unions will make the state less attractive for companies. "We came to TN after considering various laws. After committing our investments, if the government goes ahead with forceful recognition of unions, it would be tantamount to moving the goal post half way through the game," an official with an MNC said. Trade unionists have a different view. "Having a union is a fundamental right. The state labour advisory board comprises members of five unions, representative of management of companies and the government. We have recommended to the government that the unions be recognized by the managements," said A Soundararajan of CITU.According to the labour ministry, strikes in manufacturing and service companies across the country rose 48% in 2008 from the year before.

Remedy needed to Indias Incs labour unrest ailment:

It is a trend that threatens to assume alarming proportions in corporate India. Incidents of labour unrest have been on the rise in recent years across companies, pointing to growing discontent among workers over wages and other issues. The list of companies include big names such as Colgate-Palmolive, Hero, Maruti Suzuki, Hyundai, Videocon, Onida, Arvind Mills, Nokia and Mahindra & Mahindra. These companies are believed to have good governance and human resource (HR) policies. Colgate, for instance, just announced the end of an 18-day strike by labourers at its Goa plant following intervention by the labour commissioner there. Earlier this month, Videocon had managed to quell unrest at its Bharuch plant in Gujarat which was sparked by the companys move to lay off some workers at the factory. The same goes for Maruti Suzuki, Hyundai, Onida, Arvind Mills and Nokia, managing to find a middle path with striking workers at their respective plants. Bringing labour strife to a halt remains top priority for most managements, due to the bad press it gets as well as the production loss. Union leaders allege companies dont do enough for their workers. Tapan Sen, Rajya Sabha MP and general secretary of the Centre of Indian Trade Union, a prominent workers union that operates in a number of companies, argues there is gross violation of labour law in factories of big corporates. Often, companies use terrorising tactics such as retrenchment or suspension when workers raise their voice over issues pertaining to wages or increments or even better working conditions. This only aggravates matters, he says. HR experts have a different view to offer. According to Sunil Goel, director of Delhi-based HR consultancy GlobalHunt, which advises blue-chip companies, managements failure to effectively communicate to workers about policies could lead to a stand-off. This could take an ugly turn when managements are perceived by workmen to be insensitive. So, in reality, while companies may actually be following good HR policies on the factory floor, lack of effective communication could lead to widespread dissatisfaction among workers, he adds. Permanent workers in Indias second-largest car maker, Hyundai, earn between Rs 45,000 and Rs 47,000 a month, depending on the number of years they have put in. In the largest car-maker, Maruti Suzuki, monthly wages of an experienced hand stand at over Rs 50,000 at its Gurgaon plant and Rs 39,800 at its Manesar plant. In both companies, disquiet among workers started brewing over the appropriate representation of workers by the formation of union. At Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki, the company management initially refused to recognise politically affiliated unions. When the unrest happened about three years ago, workers agitated not over wages but over the formation of a union. We told them they could form a union but that we would not recognise a politically-affiliated union. We will talk with any independent representative body. Most workers saw sense in that and the strike was called off. The key is to communicate and not lose touch with your employees, says a senior executive at Hyundai India.

At Maruti Suzuki, too, after initial reluctance, the companys management helped the employees in registering a second independent union at Manesar. What happened later and resulted in the death of a senior human resources executive on the factory premises erupted from latent internal issues, according to the special investigation team set up by the Haryana government. Deepesh Rathore, managing director of HIS Automotive India, explains labour problems of the magnitude witnessed at Maruti Suzuki occurs due to complex issues ranging from disparity in socio-economic conditions within the same workforce to lack of identification with the companys work philosophy. When a large number of contract or temporary workers within a company get paid a fraction of the salary earned by permanent workers, differences surface within the workforce. The living conditions of this section of workers are miserable, particularly when contrasted with the socioeconomic parameters in the Guragon-Manesar region, which has developed into one of the flagship industrial sectors in the country. Besides, the worker may not be able to identify with the strict work culture of a Japanese company or there could be a complete lack of communication between the management and those on the shop-floor. All these issues need to be looked at, says Rathore. In fact, if monthly wages of contract labourers are considered, the picture is indeed grim. The average salary for contract workers is Rs 15,000 a month in Hyundai, while at Maruti Suzuki it is about Rs 12,000. In Maharashtra and Goa, for instance, contract labourers at big companies draw anywhere between Rs 3,500 and Rs 10,000 a month. The starting salary for permanent workers, on the other hand, could be Rs 15,000 to Rs 30,000, depending on exper

CONCLUSION:
Labour unrest is a social phenomenon of enormous complexity and it is difficult to give any complete explanation of this phenomenon. It is a matter of controversy whether the predominant factors underlying labour unrest are economic or non-economic. It has been concluded that so long as income remained the all important means for satisfying human wants and needs, wages would continue to be the major consideration in labour unrest. Labour force has been the most important factors in industries. It is the labour force which can help the industry to reach to the optimum goal as well as down it to the dust. Labour unrest originated mainly from deprivation and longstanding grievance of the workforce can diminish all achievement of the industry. Hence, addressing the problem is a crying need. Government is to play a vital role in addressing the problem by formulating policy regarding management of labour force of industry, by involving the workers in the decision making process, by regular monitoring the factories and conditions of the workers, by evaluating the implementing policies and reviewing opinions of the stakeholders, government can help a lot to solve the problem and continue the success story.