2007 Supreme(SC) 1508

2007(8) Supreme 657
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
C.K. Thakker & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Others — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5458 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15199/2007]
Decided on : 28-11-2007

important point
Some of the general principles of CPC may be applied to ID Act also.

Headnote:(a)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIII, rule 1 – The principle underlying R.1 of O. XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy – Not applicable in present case. (Para 12)

       AIR 1987 SC 88 – Distinguished.

       (b)Precedent – Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved – A case is only an authority for what it actually decides. (Para 19)

       1901 AC 495; (1987) 1 SCC 213; (2003) 2 SCC 111; AIR 2004 SC 4778; 1951 AC 737; 1970 (2) All ER 294; 1972 (2) WLR 537 – Relied upon.

       (c)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-O – Although the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply to proceedings under Section 25-O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings under in any other Act, some of the general principles in the CPC may be applicable – However, this does not mean that all provisions in the CPC will strictly apply to proceedings which are not suits. (Para 21)

       (2004)1 SCC 68 – Relied upon.

       (d)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-O (5) – Section 25-O(5) only applies when an order is passed on merits either granting or refusing to grant permission for closure – Since in the present case no order on merits was passed, Section 25-O(5) has no application – Since the application for withdrawal of the first petition under Section 25-O(1) was made bona fide by the company, its re-submission was not invalid. (Para 26)

       (2006)1 SCC 479 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case:

       1.Respondent No. 3, Century Industries Textiles Limited had about 7500 employees in its textile mill at Mumbai which suffered heavy loss due to high increase in the cost of production and competition both in the domestic as well as international market.

       2.With the object to reduce its operational cost, agreements dated 6.7.2004 and 5.9.2005 were entered into by the company with its recognized union for reducing the workforce through an offer of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Finally, a highly upgraded VRS was offered to the employees unilaterally by the respondent-company on 13.11.2006 which offer was valid till 12.12.2006. There was an overwhelming response to the said VRS and more than 6300 employees opted for the new VRS, and were accordingly relieved from service on payment of VRS benefits and all other legal dues. Only about 275 employees did not accept the abovementioned VRS and 230 of these were the petitioners before the High Court.

       3.Allegedly all manufacturing activities in company’s textile mill came to an end on 13.12.2006 since it was left with only 275 workers. All supervisors and departmental heads had left after taking the VRS. In these circumstances, the respondent-company filed an application seeking permission for closure under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act vide application dated 13.2.2007.

       4.Before the aforesaid application under Section 25-O could be decided, in view of a meeting convened by the Hon’ble Minister for Labour, Maharashtra Government, in order to create a conducive atmosphere for discussing the problems of the remaining employees who had not taken VRS, the respondent-company withdrew its application under Section 25-O(1), but reserving its right to move fresh application under Section 25-O as and when necessary.

       5.It appears, however, that the effort for an amicable settlement failed. Hence the respondent-company filed fresh application under Section 25-O(1) on 11.5.2007 before the Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai.

       6.The appellant, which represents the workmen concerned, opposed the very entertainment of the second closure application under Section 25-O on the ground that the first application was withdrawn but without liberty from the concerned authority to file a fresh application. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court praying that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour should be directed not to take any further proceedings in relation to the closure application under Section 25-O.

       7.The writ petition was dismissed.

       Findings of the Court:

       Bona fide resubmission of application u/s 25-O(1) by the company was not invalid.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.