JUDGMENT :

S.C. GUPTE, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith, by consent of Counsel.

2. This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, purporting to holding charge of Additional Commissioner of Labour. The impugned order is passed under Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act). The Petitioner herein, who is an employer, applied for permission of the State Government, as an Appropriate Government, for lay-off. The application was made in the prescribed manner stating reasons for the intended lay-off and a copy was served on the workmen concerned. The workmen appeared and showed cause through their union. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Respondent No. 2 herein, passed an order. By his order dated 31 July 2019, the Commissioner refused to grant permission under Section 25-M for the proposed layoff. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Though the challenge is on various grounds including merits of the order, the main ground of challenge, which goes to the root of the matter, is the authority or power vesting in Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide an application under Section 25-M of the Act. Under Section 25-M of the Act, no workman, whose name is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to which Chapter V-B applies, can be laid-off by his employer except with the prior permission specified in Sub-section (1) thereof. The authority or power to grant such prior permission is with the Appropriate Government itself or such authority as may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette. It is not in dispute that the State Government, who is the Appropriate Government in the present case, had by a Gazette Notification dated 28 February 2002 specified Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune, as the specified authority for the purposes of Section 25-M of the Act for the local area of Pune Division. Respondent No. 2, who heard the application of the Petitioner and who passed the impugned order, claimed to hold the charge of Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune. Learned AGP produces before the court the orders passed by the Minister of Labour, Government of Maharashtra and by the Commissioner of Labour, State of Maharashtra. The Hon’ble Minister, by his order dated 3 April 2018, entrusted the charge of the office of the Additional Commissioner of Pune to Respondent No. 2, who was at the relevant time, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane. This order of the Minister was followed by a formal order passed on 11 April 2018 by the Commissioner of Labour, State of Maharashtra, by which, the Commissioner of Labour entrusted the charge of Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune to Respondent No. 2 as an additional charge. Based on these two orders, it is submitted by learned AGP and also learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the trade unions opposing the Petitioner’s application, that Respondent No. 2 had the requisite authority to pass orders under Section 25-M by virtue of this delegation or entrustment.

4. As we have noted above, the power to pass orders under Section 25-M of the Act is with the Appropriate Government or the authority specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette. The Act also contains an appropriate provision for delegation of powers. That provision is contained in Section 39 of the Act. Even under this provision, delegation of powers by the Appropriate Government is by a notification in the Official Gazette. Where the Appropriate Government is the State Government, any power exercisable by it under the Act or Rules made thereunder is, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification. Such delegati