SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 1254

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Papnasam Labour Union, Appellant
Versus
Madura Coats Ltd. and another, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 807 of 1982
Decided on 8-12-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. K. Jain Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. R. Seetharaman Advocate, with him for Appellants; Mr. A. K. Srivastava Advocate, for Appellants; Nos. 2-5 in Cri. A. Nos. 182, 183-186 / 85. Dr. Shankar Ghosh Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. P. Dava, Mr. R. A. Perumal and Mr. H. K. Dutt, Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Advocates, with him for Respondent in C. A. No. 807 / 82.

Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, AMBRISH KUMAR, H.K.DUTT, P.R.SITHARAMAN, R.A.PERUMAL, R.K.JAIN, R.P.DAVE, SHANKAR GOPAL PAGIRE

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 19 - Central province and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidi (Agricultural Purposes) Act 1948 - Sections 3 and 4 - Kerala Act - Section 20 - Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 25 M - Joint Commissioner of Labour - Protecting existing employment - Petitioner respondent also prayed that State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government and Employment Department Madras should be restrained enforcing provisions of said Industrial Dispute Amendment Act in respect of layoff application being application made by petitioner- petitioner also prayed for a writ in nature of certiorari calling for records of Joint Commissioner of Madras for quashing order which said lay off application was rejected by Joint Commissioner- Along with said Writ Petition number of similar writ petitions challenging of Section - Industrial Disputes Act and consequential penalty for lay off in contravention Section were heard by Division Bench of Madras High Court and by one common judgment all said writ petitions were disposed -Held, Procedural reasonableness has been taken care of by these provisions- As regards substantive reasonableness court feel satisfied as power in question would be exercised by a specified authority and as it can well be presumed that one is to be specified would be a high authority who would be conscious of his duties and obligation- If such an authority would be informed that lay off is required because of any sudden break down of machinery which illustration was given persuade us to regard restriction as unreasonable court have no doubt that would act promptly and see that establishment in question is not put loss for no fault on its part- As every power has to be exercised reasonably and as such an exercise takes within its fold exercise of power within reasonable time court can take for granted that statutory provision requires that in apparent causes take sudden break down justifying lay off authority would act with speed appears that indicated in Mills case in upholding validity Section squarely apply in upholding - It also appears to us that impugned provision of satisfies various aspects of scrutiny for upholding reasonable restriction on fundamental right when tested in context of guidelines and principles indicated hereinbefore- restriction appears necessary to us in larger public interest and to protect interest of workmen who but for restriction may be subjected to uncalled for lay off application of this restriction to industrial establishments specified in Section duly takes care of hardship which could otherwise be caused to small establishments- Directive Principles do require placing of restriction on large industrial establishments employing large number of workmen - appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J. :—This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th April, 1981 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 1119 of 1977. The said writ petition was moved by the respondent No. 1. Madura Coats Ltd., for a declaration that Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it stood under the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1976 in so far as it required prior permission to be obtained to effect lay off is ultra vires and void. The writ petitioner respondent No. 1 also prayed that the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Madras should be restrained form enforcing the provisions of the said Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act in respect of the lay off application being application No. 4 of 1976 made by the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, for quashing order dated 11th September 1976 by which the said lay off application was rejected by the Joint Labour Commissioner. Along with the said Writ Petition No. 1119 of 1977, a number of similar writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequential prosecutional penalty for the lay off in contravention of Section 25 M were heard by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and by one common judgment, all the said writ petitions were disposed of.

2. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court inter alia held that Section 25-M as it stood under the said amendment Act, 1976 was constitutionally invalid for the reasons given by this Court in invalidating Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the decision rendered in Excel Wear v. Union of India (1979) 1 SCR 1009 : AIR 1979 SC 25. The Madras High Court further held that in view of its finding that Section 25-M was constitutionally invalid, it was unnecessary for the Court to go into the validity or otherwise on the orders passed by the authorities which had been impugned in some of the cases before the High Court. The High Court also rejected the prayer for granting leave to appeal to this Court by indicating that as the High Court had followed the judgment of the Apex Court in Excel Wears case AIR 1979 SC 25 there was no occasion to hold that the impugned decision involved a substantial question of law of general importance which was required to be decided by the Apex Court.

3. For the purpose of appreciating the respective contentions of the parties in this appeal. The provisions of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1776 is set out as hereunder :-

"25-M. Prohibition of lay-off (1) No workman (other than a badli workman or a casual workman whose name is more on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies shall be laid off by his employer except with the previous permission or of such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette unless such lay off is due to shortage of power or to natural calamity.

(2) Where the workmen (other than badli workmen or casual workmen) of an industrial establishment referred to in sub-section (1) have been laid off before the commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 and such lay-off continues at such commencement, the employer in relation to such establishment shall, within a period of fifteen days from such commencement, apply to the authority specified under sub-section (1) for permission to continue the lay-off.

(3) In the case of every application for permission under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the authority to whom the application has been made may, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, grant or refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the permission applied for.

(4) Where an application for permission has been made under sub-sectio









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top