Petitioner has called in question an order passed by 1st respondent dated 10th September 2004 produced at Annexure-H.

2. Second respondent - Union had made an application on 17.4.2001 to the first respondent interalia seeking permission to prosecute the petitioner on the ground of violation of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act(in short referred to as ‘the Act’). In this regard, the State Government had called for a report form the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner by letter dated 7.8.2001 had submitted his report. Government held an enquiry and considering the respective contentions observed that the petitioner – management has violated the provisions of Section 25-M and in view of the power conferred under Section 34 read with Section 25-Q of the Act granted permission by the impugned order.

3. Sri.Nagabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, order of the first respondent produced at Annexure-H is per se illegal and contrary to Section 25-M of the Act. He submitted that, before invoking the power under Section 34, the Union must prove the violation of Section 25-M of the Act. In this regard, he submitted that, Section 25-M deals with ‘prohibition of lay-off and Section 25-M sub-section (7) confers power with State Government either on its own motion or on the application made by employer or workman to review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (4) of Section 25-M and in this regard, he referred to Annexure-E, an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.80/2001 dated 15th June 2002 and submitted that, the second respondent – Union had raised a dispute, as to whether the lay-off declared by the petitioner – management w.e.f. 16.4.2001 is justified or not and the said dispute has been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that, when the issue as to whether the lay-off is justified or not was the subject matter of adjudication and in view of the dismissal of the award, power is not conferred on the State Government to invoke the provisions of Section 34 on the allegation that there is violation of Section 25-M of the Act. He further submitted that, when an issue is referred by the State Government itself by its order dated 27.7.2001 under Section 10 sub-section(1) clause (b) of the Act for adjudication, unless the issue is adjudicated, it cannot be held that there is an illegal lay-off declared by the management.

4. Alternatively, he also submitted that, management and the members of the union have entered into a settlement under Section 18 sub-section (1) on 2nd April 2008 and in view of the settlement, dispute is not maintainable. All the claims having been settled, the question of granting permission by the State Government does not arise. He further submitted that, the union admittedly having approached the Industrial Tribunal for whatever reason and award having been passed, is binding both on the management as well as the union, the union now cannot turn around and allege the violation of Section 25-M of the Act.

5. Per contra, Sri.C.S. Mohan, President of the union in person submitted that, the issue as to whether there is violation of provisions of Section 25-M or not, is no more available to contend, as the said issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.33650/2001. He referred to Annexure-R11 and pointed out that the petitioner – management had filed a writ petition challenging the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Commissioner to recover a amount of Rs.51,56,746/- and management had raised a contention that there is no lay-off and it is not liable to pay the said amount. This Court considered the said issue and has held that, there is violation of Section 25M of the Act and it is only in view of the violation of the provisions of Section 25-M, the Labour Commissioner exercising his power under Chapter V-B has issued a recovery certificate. Further, he also submitted that