Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avtec Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1102 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
AVTEC LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, SECTOR III, PITHAMPUR, DISRICT
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI J.P.CAMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MS.KIRTI PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH:
LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MOTI
BUNGLOW, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AVTEC AND HINDUSTAN MOTROS
SHRAMIK SANGH, B/M 150, HOUSING
BOARD COLONY. PITHAMPUR, DISTT.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI VISHAL VAIRAGHAR S/O LATE SHRI
VISHNUPANT, 181, SAHAKAR NAGAR. CAT
SQUARE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI UMESH GAJANKUSH - ADDL. ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 AND
SHRI BRIAN D' SILVA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
2
SHRI SHASHANK SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 )
Reserved on : 25.04.2023
Pronounced on : 28.04.2023
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
passed the following:
ORDER
The present Writ Appeal is filed under Section 2(2) of Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam 2005 being
aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2021 passed in WP No.5344/2020 by
which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3 and 4 has been allowed
and the order dated 17.2.2020 rejecting reference application u/S.25-N(6)
has been set aside and the respondent No.2 has been directed to refer the
dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.
2. Facts of the case are that the appellant AVTEC Limited submitted an
application on 25.10.2019 u/S.25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred as "Act") seeking permission for retrenchment of
workmen from its Pithampur plant. The notices were issued by the Labour
Commissioner and on an objection raised by the Union/Workmen, the said
application was rejected for want of procedure and liberty was granted to
the appellant to file fresh application u/S.25-N of the Act. The respondent
No.3 Union moved an application for reference on the said order whereby
the appellant was permitted to file fresh application. Since the application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
filed by the appellant was not rejected and, therefore, no reference could
have been made to industrial court. The reference is permissible against an
order granting or refusing to grant permission for retrenchment, however,
Union challenged the order dated 19.12.2019 in WP No.247/2020 before
this Court and since the permission for retrenchment was already granted
during the pendency of the petition the said petition was dismissed having
been rendered infructuous by order dated 7.2.2020. According to the
appellant, the plant was facing financial problem and was struggling for its
existence and, therefore, the application for permission for retrenchment
was filed u/S.25-N of the Act. It was also stated that appellant faced dire
financial conditions and accumulated loss of Rs.141.19 crores in the last six
financial years between 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 and, therefore, sought
permission for retrenchment of 217 workmen out of 356 workmen. The
authority specified in the Act vide its order dated 3.2.2020 passed an order
granting permission to appellant to retrench 217 workmen as had been
applied for. After passing the order dated 3.2.2020 the respondent Union
and the workmen had submitted an application seeking reference to the
industrial tribunal and few workmen submitted application seeking review
of the order as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) of the Act. Specified
authority by order dated 14.2.2020 rejected the application submitted by
three workmen and decided not to review the order on the application and
also rejected the application for reference filed by respondent No.3 and 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
on the ground that since the application for review has already been refused
and, therefore, the prayer for reference at the instance of the respondent
No.3 and 4 cannot be decided as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) and the
law laid down by the division bench of this court in WP No.1368/1997
Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh and others Vs. State of MP (1999) 1 LLJ
1197 (MP) wherein it has been held that in Sec.25-N(6) it is not mandatory
for the authority to refer the case to the tribunal. This is voluntary provision
and since by speaking order the prayer for review has already been rejected
filed by three employees, the application for reference filed by the
respondents No.3 and 4 was rejected. It was further held that there is no
propriety or legal basis for the trial on the same point as the detailed
speaking order has been passed as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(3) of the
Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.3 and 4 filed a
Writ petition No.5344/2020 and challenged the order and sought relief of
quashment of orders Annexure P/5 and P/8 by which the reference was
declined and sought a direction to the respondent No.2 to refer the matter
for adjudication to the industrial tribunal.
3. Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that before the specified
authority there were two applications; one set of application was filed by
the three employees for review of the order for permission of retrenchment
and the other application was filed by respondent No.3 and 4 seeking a
reference to the tribunal. The authority had discretion to decide either of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
the application and the authority decided the review application and
dismissed the same and on the same date after affording opportunity to the
respondent No.3 and 4 also decided the application filed by respondent
No.3 and 4 declining reference on the ground that the review filed by the
other employees has already been rejected. It is argued that once the review
application was decided, as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) the reference
cannot be granted. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary
to the judgment passed by the division bench of this court in the case of
Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) and the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Cable Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Addl.
Commissioner of Labour and others (2008) 7 SCC 680 where it has been
held that once the application for review has been dismissed, the
appropriate authority cannot refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal for
adjudication. Only two options are available to the specified authorities
either to consider the review application or to reference application for
adjudication to the industrial tribunal. After exercising one option another
cannot be exercised. He referred to paragraphs five to twelve of the said
judgment and submitted that in view of the aforesaid paragraphs there can
either review or a reference but not both. He also argued that in Cable
Corporation of India (supra) the Court observed that had the legislature
intended that the reference could be made after the government or the
specified authority deals with the review power, it would have said so
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
specially by specified words. It could have provided for a direct reference.
The parameters of review are different from a reference, therefore, the
legislature has not provided for a direct reference and the power has vested
with the specified authority either to invoke the power of review or a
reference, then it is not open for judicial scrutiny. He also referred para 15
of the said judgment and submitted that the Apex Court has opined that it
is the domain of specified authority either to decide, review or refer the
matter to the tribunal and such discretionary power cannot be subjected to
judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel for appellant further asservated that the
Division Bench of this court in the case of Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh
(supra) in para 6 and 7 held that the appropriate government may either on
its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any
workman, review its order for granting or refusing to grant permission
under Section 2 or refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. The
word 'may' makes it optional for the government to either review the order
granting or refusing permission for closure or to refer the matter to the
tribunal for adjudication. It is not mandatory for the government to resort
to both options simultaneously or one after the other. The word "or"
assumes significance in this context. It may or may not resort to either
option or may take one option. When it elects to take review option that
ends the matter. It cannot be then asked to take recourse to make reference
to the Tribunal. There could be cases where word 'may' used in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
provision could be treated directory as done by the Rajasthan High Court
but that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In
any case, the employee cannot ask for either option as a matter of right more
so when one option of review stands exhausted.
4. He also argued that the judgment passed by the Apex court in the
case of Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 2 SCC
578, the constitutional validity of Sec.25-O of the Act was under
consideration which is akin to provisions of Sec.25-N. He referred para
10 of the Cable Corporation of India (supra) and submitted that in the
said case the Apex Court has held in para 10 that on a close reading of the
judgment it is clear that in the said case the issues presently under
consideration did not fall for consideration. What was stated in essence
was that the provisions for amended Section 25-O relates to review and
reference would be in addition to judicial review under Article 226 or
Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court was really considering the
question as to whether provisions for review and reference were in addition
to judicial review. It never said that they are cumulative and not alternative.
He also referred para 9 of the Cable Corporation of India (supra) where
the Apex Court after referring to the judgment passed in the case of
Workmen Vs. Vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd (1992) 3 SCC 336 held that the
scope and ambit of Sec.25-N as it stood then, prior to its substitution by
the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984, was considered. Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
25-O was recast with effect from 21.8.1984 by Act 46 of 1982. Similarly,
changes were brought in Section 25-N by Act 49 of 1984 w.e.f. 18.8.1984.
Under Section 25-N(5) finality is given subject to sub-section (6). A plain
reading of the provision shows that two options are available i.e. to decide
itself or refer to the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the Tribunal is
additional forum for fresh look at the matter.
5. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge could not have
issued a writ of mandamus directing to refer dispute to the Tribunal for
adjudication. The said discretion is conferred on the authority u/S.25-N(6)
of the Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India and
others Vs. T. Jogram (2007) 7 SCC 236. He also referred the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. and another
Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others (1976) 1 SCC 60. The Apex Court
considered Sec.4-K of U.P. Act which is pari materia with Sec.10(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act held that power u/S.10(1) of the Central Act is
discretionary and it is open to the government under certain circumstances
by taking into consideration the relevant factors to refuse to make a
reference. The High Court quashed the order of refusing to make a
reference and directed to make a reference. It was held that the Court could
not have given peremptory direction to make a reference. At the most High
Court could ask the government to reconsider the matter. The same view
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
was taken by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Avon Services
Production Agencies Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and others
(1979) 1 SCC 1. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it is argued that the
learned Single Judge has committed an illegality in issuing a writ of
mandamus. He further argued that it is well settled principle of law that
judicial review is not against the decision, it is against the decision making
process. In the instant case, there are no allegations of procedural
irregularities, illegality and also there is no allegation of violation of
principle of natural justice and, therefore, the learned Single Judge could
not have substituted his view. He referred para 15 of the judgment passed
in the case of Bank of India Vs. T. Jogram (supra). He also argued that
the order passed u/S.25-N is an order - in rem and, therefore, once the order
of refusal of review is passed it would apply to all the workmen.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 supported the order of
the authority and rejection of reference. He submits that the authority has
rightly rejected the reference application u/S.25-N(6) as the review
application filed by the three workmen was already rejected. He also relied
on the judgments passed by the Division Bench in Ujjain Mills Mazdoor
Sangh (supra) and Cable Corporation of India (supra) which have been
referred by the Senior Counsel for the appellant. The order of Single Judge
is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-N(6) and judgment of Supreme
Court and appeal deserves to be allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
7. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 supported the order of
Single Judge and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. (supra). He referred para 5,10,14 and 16 of
the said judgment. It is submitted that the Apex Court was considering the
constitutional validity of Sec.25-O of the Act 1947 and the provisions of
Sec.25-O is akin to the provisions of Sec.25-N. In Workmen vs.
Meenakshi Mills Ltd (supra) (1992) 2 SCC 336 while considering the
constitutional validity of Sec.25-N the Apex Court pointed out the
differences between 25-O and 25-N and held that the considerations which
have weighed in the case of Excel Wear Vs. Union of India (1978) 4 SCC
224 could not be applied for judging the validity of Sec.25-N. In Workmen
Vs. Meenashi Mills Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions
of Sec.25-O has been enacted to give effect to the directive principles of
the Constitution. He also argued that as per para 16 of the Orissa Textile
(supra), the authority is bound to decide the application for reference. He
submitted that the judgments relied by the counsel for appellant in the case
of Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) and Cable Corporation of India
Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.
8. It is further urged that a right is vested with the respondent No.3 and
4 under the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) either to make an application for
review or to make application for reference. The respondents submitted an
application for reference which has been dismissed by the impugned order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
only on the ground that the review application was already rejected filed by
other three workmen. Their application for reference has not been decided
on merit. He also alleged that those three workmen have been later-on re-
employed by the appellant, therefore, the judgments relied by the counsel
for appellant in the case of Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. (supra)
and Cable Corporation of India (supra) would not apply to the facts of
the case. The respondents 3 and 4 did not file application for review. They
had chosen to file application for reference which ought to have been
decided by the Authority despite dismissal of review application by three
workmen. Counsel for respondent No.3 and 4 also submitted that the
judgments relied by the counsel for appellant in the case of T. Jogram
(supra), Govind Sugar Mills Ltd (supra), M/s. Avon Services Production
Agencies (supra) would not apply to the present case as those cases were
dealing with the provisions of Sec.10-D of the Act where the authority has
to first adjudicate existence of a dispute and then only a reference can be
made, and, therefore, the Apex Court held that a direction cannot be issued
to make reference by way of writ of mandamus. The learned Single Judge
has rightly set aside the order and issued direction for reference.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and carefully
examined the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act and various judgments
cited before us by both the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
10. It would be apposite to refer the relevant provisions of Sec.25-N of
the Act which reads as under:-
"25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen.- (1) No workman employed in any industrial
establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has
been in continuous service for not less than one year
under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until,-
(a) the workman has been given three months' notice in
writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the workman has been
paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice;
and
(b) The prior permission of the appropriate Government
or such authority as may be specified by that Government
by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this
section referred to as the specified authority) has been
obtained on an application made in this behalf.
(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1)
shall be made by the employer in the prescribed manner
stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment
and a copy of such application shall also be served
simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the
prescribed manner.
(3) Where an application for permission under sub-
section (1) has been made, the appropriate Government
or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it
thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and
the person interested in such retrenchment, may, having
regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons
stated by the employer, the interests of the workmen and
all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such
permission and a copy of such order shall be
communicated to the employer and the workmen.
(4) Where an application for permission has been made
under sub- section (1) and the appropriate Government
or the specified authority does not communicate the order
granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer
within a period of sixty days from the date on which such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
application is made, the permission applied for shall be
deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said
period of sixty days.
(5) An order of the appropriate Government or the
specified authority granting or refusing to grant
permission shall, subject to the provisions of subsection
(6), be final and binding on all the parties concerned and
shall remain in force for one year from the date of such
order.
(6) The appropriate Government or the specified authority
may, either on its own motion or on the application made
by the employer or any workman, review its order
granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-
section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be,
cause it to be referred, to a Tribunal for adjudication:
Provided that where a reference has been made to a
Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass an award
within a period of thirty days from the date of such
reference."
11. Upon perusal of the provisions of Sec.25-N, it is axiomatic that
conditions have been prescribed which are precedent before retrenchment
of a workmen. In sub section (1) it has been provided that no workmen
employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies,
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer unless the conditions
prescribed under sub-clause (a) and (b) are fulfilled. Sub clause (a)
provides that the workman has to be given three months notice in writing
indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired,
or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the said
period and the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such
authority as may be specified by the government has been obtained on an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
application made in this behalf. Sub-section (2) provides that an application
for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the
prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment
and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the
workman concerned in the prescribed manner. Sub-section (3) provides
that where an application for permission under sub-section (1) has been
made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority shall make an
enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the employer, the workman concerned and the person interested
in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy
of the reasons stated by the employer, the interests of the workmen and all
other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing,
grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be
communicated to the employer and the workmen. Sub-section (4) further
provides that when an application for permission has been made under sub-
section (1) and the appropriate Government or the specified officer does not
communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the
employer within a period of 60 days from the date on which such
application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have
been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. Sub-section
(5) provides that an order of appropriate Government or the specified
authority granting or refusing to grant permission shall subject to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
provisions of sub-section (6), be final and binding on all the parties
concerned and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order.
Sub-section (6) provides that the appropriate Government or the specified
authority may, either on its own motion or on the application made by the
employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant
permission under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be,
cause it to be referred, to a Tribunal for adjudication provided that where a
reference has been made to a Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass
an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference.
12. From reading the aforesaid clauses of Sec.25-N, it is axiomatic that
these are the conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen. The entire
provision has to be read together and on careful reading, it is manifest that
a protection is provided to the workmen before his retrenchment as the
permission has to be sought from the appropriate government or the
authority. The employer, the workmen and the person interested in such
retrenchment has to be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The authority has to consider the genuineness and adequacy of reasons
stated by the employer, the interest of the workmen and all other relevant
facts and the authority has to record reasons in writing to grant or refuse
permission and the said order has to be communicated to the employer and
the workmen. Sub-section (6) provides remedy against the order of
permission or refusal of permission for retrenchment that the appropriate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
Government or the specified authority may either on its own motion or an
application made by the employer or any workmen review its order granting
or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or
as the case may be caused to be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication.
13. Thus, on harmonious reading of sub-section (1) to (6), it is crystal
clear that a right has been conferred on employer and employee to make an
application for review or reference against the order of granting or refusing
to grant permission. Thus, the provisions of Sub-section (6) of 25-N of the
Act confers vested right to an employer or employee to make review or
reference against the order of granting or refusing permission to retrench a
workmen. The provision is beneficial legislation. The authority may
exercise its power on its own motion as well. The word "or" used in sub-
section (6) of 25-N has been considered in the case of Cable Corporation
of India Limited (supra) in para 11. In the case of Fakir Mohd. Vs.
Sitaram (2002) 1 SCC 741 it was held that the word "or" is normally
disjunctive. The use of the word "or" in a statute manifests the legislative
intent of the alternatives prescribed under law.
14. In the case of Cable Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), the Apex
Court has held that once the authority has declined to review the order, then
the order for reference cannot be passed to the Tribunal for adjudication
because the word "or" used in it. It is correct that the authority in exercise
of the power u/S.25-N(6) of the Act either on its own motion or application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
made by the employer or any workmen review its order granting or refusing
to grant permission of retrenchment or refer the matter to the Tribunal for
adjudication as the case may be. Prior to the said judgment, a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra)
also held that option is granted to the government to either review the order
or granting or refusing permission for closure or to refer the matter to the
Tribunal for adjudication. It is not mandatory for the Government to resort
to both options simultaneously or one after the other. It may or may not
resort to either option or may take one option. When it elects to take review
option that ends the matter. Employee cannot ask for either options as a
matter of right more so when one option of the review stand exhausted.
15. In the case of Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court
held that the reference after rejection of the review is not an additional
protection. In the case of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (supra), it is held that
there is no additional Forum u/S.25-N(6). In respect of provisions of
Sec.25-N(6) it is well settled that the workmen after seeking review cannot
seek reference by filing another application or in the case if composite
application is filed by workmen for review and reference and once the
application is rejected for review, the reference cannot be made as the
remedy is optional. In the case of Ujjain Mills Mazdoor Sangh
(supra), the appellants after rejection of review application filed the
application for reference and, therefore, the division bench held that once
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
the review application has been decided, then the authority was not under
obligation to decide reference application. The applicants were the same
who had earlier filed review application and then were seeking reference.
In the case of Cable Corporation of India (supra) also as per para 2 of the
judgment, the Union has applied for review of the decision or to refer the
matter for adjudication by composite application and the authority rejected
the application on the ground that once the prayer for review was rejected,
then the workmen cannot ask to decide reference being composite
application by the same workmen. In the present case, the respondent No.3
and 4 filed application for reference in terms of the order u/S.25-N(6) prior
in time to filing the application for review by three workmen but the
authority instead of deciding the application for reference decided the
review application filed by three workmen and rejected the application for
reference by the Union - respondent No.3 and 4 on the ground that review
has already been rejected.
16. In the present case, the respondent No.3 and 4 have not filed
application for review. They filed application for reference before the
authority and subsequent to that, three workmen filed application for review
of the order of permission for retrenchment which was rejected. The
appellant has sought only reference and a right is vested with a workmen
u/S.25-N(6) either to seek review or reference and the authority is under
obligation to decide the same. The application filed by the appellant for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
reference was prior in time but the authority had chosen to decide the
application for review of permission filed by three workmen and declined
the review and thereafter rejected the application for reference without
considering on merit only on the basis of the rejection of the review and the
judgment passed in the case of Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra)
without adverting to the merits of the application and examining the
validity of order of granting permission for retrenchment of 217 workmen.
17. If the contention of the appellant that once the review application of
three workmen was rejected, the Authority had no option but to reject the
application of other workmen for reference is accepted, then, the right
conferred on the workmen granting protection against the illegal
retrenchment is frustrated and the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act
would become redundant. The option for a workmen is either to make
application for review or to make an application for reference. Once one
prayer is declined, the other cannot be considered, but in the present case
the application for reference filed by the respondent No.3 and 4 has been
rejected only on the ground that the review filed by three workmen has
already been rejected. None of the judgments pressed into service before
us by the learned counsel for appellant lays down that if review application
of one workmen is rejected, the application of other workmen would be
liable to be rejected on the said ground.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
18. Further, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for
appellant that the writ court could not have issued a direction for reference
but on reading of the provisions of Sec.25-N, it is axiomatic that a remedy
is provided to a workmen and employer to make review or reference of
order granting or refusing to grant permission for retrenchment and the
authority is under obligation to decide the said application and, therefore,
the learned Single Judge has rightly issued a direction for reference. In view
of the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act, the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that the order passed under the
said provision is judgment-in-rem. Section 25-N(6) confers a right on a
workmen to make review or reference against order granting or refusing
permission for retrenchment. Power of judicial review of High Court under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution and the power of Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been held to be a part of basic
structure of the Constitution in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union
of India (1997) 3 SCC 261.
19. In the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others Vs. Sri Anjaneya
Swami Temple and others (1996) 3 SCC 52, the Apex Court ruled that in
an intra-court appeal, the appellate court is a Court of correction which
corrects its own orders, in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested
in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of
a Court of error.
20. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge warranting any interference in this intra-court appeal.
Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves and is hereby dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:31:55
