Judgment

S. C. AGRAWAL, J.:- These appeals and writ petitions have been placed before us on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court for the reason that they raise the question involving the constitutional validity of S. 26N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The validity of the said provision is assailed on the ground that it is violative of the right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not saved by Cl. (6) of Art. 19.

2. Since the only question required to be considered by us is with regard to the validity of S. 25-N of the Act and it can be decided on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Act without going into the facts of each case, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts.

3. Section 25-N forms part of Chapter V-B which bears the heading "Special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments". The said Chapter consists of Ss. 25-K to 25-S and was inserted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 32 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act, with effect from March 5, 1976. Section 25-K, as originally enacted, confined the applicability of the provisions of Chapter V-B to industrial establishments in which not less than 300 workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months. Section 25-M makes provision for prohibition of lay-off. Section 25-N prescribes the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. Section 25-O prescribes the procedure for closing down an undertaking. Section 25-P contains special provision as to restarting of undertakings closed down before commnecement of the 1976 Act. Section 25-Q imposes the penalty on the employee for contravention of the provisions of S. 25-M or S. 25-N. Section 25-R prescribes the penalty for closure of an undertaking without complying with the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 25-O. Section 25-S makes the provisions of Ss. 25-B, 25-D, 25-FF, 25-G, 25-H and 25-J in Chapter V-A applicable to industrial establishments to which the provisions of Chapter V-B apply.

4. The validity of S. 25-N was challenged before the various High Courts and there is a conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I. D. L. Chemicals Ltd. v. T. Gattiah (D. B. Writ Appeal 16 of 1981), decided on December 4, 1981) has upheld the validity of S. 25-N, while a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in K. V. Rajendran v. Dy. Commr. of Labour, Madurai, (1980) Lab LJ 275, has taken a contrary view and has held S. 25-N to be violative of the right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution imposing unreasonable restrictions on the said right of the employer. A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, by majority (G. M. Lodha and G. K. Sharma, JJ. Dr. K. S. Sidhu, J. dissenting) in M/s. J. K. Synthetics v. Union of India, (1984) 48 Fac LR 125 has agreed with the view of the Madras High Court in K. V. Rajendrans case (supra) and has held S. 25-N to be invalid. The Madras High Court and the Rajasthan High Court have placed reliance on the decision of this court in Excel Wear v. Union of India, (1979) 1 SCR 1009 and have held that the reasons for which this Court has struck down S. 25-O are equally applicable for judging the validity of S. 25-N.

5. Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1984 is directed against the said judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1983 is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court based on the decision in K. V. Rajendrans case (1991 Lab IC 799) (supra). The correctness of the decisions of the Rajasthan and Madras High Courts, referred to above, is under challenge in these matters before us.

6. After the decision of this Court in Excel Wear case (AIR 1979 SC 25) (supra), Parliament enacted the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 46 of 1982) whereby S. 25-O was substituted. By the