The power of review under section 25-O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, expires with the efficacy of the original order, and an order of reference made after the expiry of one year from the date of the original order is without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J. :- Appeal admitted. Shri Dixit on behalf of the State Government and Shri Bhatt on behalf of respondent No. 2 waive service. By consent, appeal taken on board and called out for hearing. Heard Counsel.

2. The question which falls for determination in this appeal is about the exercise of powers of review under sub-section (5) of section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts which gave rise to the dispute are not controverted and are required to be briefly set out to appreciate the grievance of the appellants.

M/s. Vazir Glass Work Ltd. - respondent No. 2 is an undertaking which has a factory at Andheri, Bombay and which employed about 750 workmen. On August 14, 1992 the Company filed an application before the State Government seeking permission to close the undertaking with effect from November 16, 1992 in accordance with provisions of section 25-O of the Act read with Rule 82-B of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. Section 25-O of the Act sets out the procedure for closing down undertaking and sub-section (1) requires employer who intends to close down an undertaking to apply for prior permission, at least 90 days before the date on which the intended closure is to become effective. The employer is required to set out the reasons for the intended closure and the copy of the application is required to be served on the representatives of the workmen.

3. Sub-section (2) of section 25-O inter alia provides that where an application is made by the employer, the appropriate Government, after making such enquiry as it deems fit and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen and the persons interested in such closure may grant or refuse to grant such permission. While exercising powers, the Government has to take into consideration the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons furnished by the employer, the interests of the general public and all other relevant factors. Sub-section (3) of section 25-O then prescribes that in case the Government fails to communicate the order granting or refusing permission sought by the employer within a period of 60 days from the date on which the application is received, then the permission shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of period of 60 days. Sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) are required to be quoted as the dispute in appeal is centered round the effect of the provisions of these two sub-sections :-

"(4) An order of the appropriate Government granting or refusing to grant permission shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) be final and binding on all the parties and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order.

(5) The appropriate Government 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 (2) or refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication."

4. The application seeking permission to close the undertaking filed by respondent No. 2 on August 14, 1992 was examined by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 25-O and was rejected by order dated October 12, 1992. The employer then preferred review application in accordance with provisions of sub-section 5) of section 25-O. The State Government, after hearing the employer and the-workmen, passed order on April 7, 1994 in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (5) of section 25-O read with Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act, referring the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The order further recites that the Tribunal shall pass an award, as provided in proviso to sub-section (5) of section 25-O of the Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the reference.

The appellants preferred Writ Petition No. 1446 of 1994 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge sitting on the Or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document