B.L. Yadav, J.P. Goyal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, G.L. Sanghi, B. Datta, Senior Advocates, Bharat Sangal, Sangeeta Panikar, R.K. Mecodt Singh, Dhruv Mehta, Shobha, Anu Mehta, S.K. Mehta, Tripurari Ray, Gopal Jain, Vineet Kumar, R.K. Maheshwari, Mahesh Srivastava, Pankaj Srivastava, N.S. Bisht, Rakesh K. Khanna, Pallavi Choudhary, Surya Kant, S. Janani, Y.P. Singh, Ajay K. Aggarwal, Alka Aggarwal, C. Siddharth, Jaideep Gupta, Gauri Rasgotra, Shruti Choudhary, Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Nina Gupta, Uday Gupta, Arpita Mahajan, Praneeta Sharma, Shiksha Sachdev, Krishan Venugopal, Manish Singhvi, C. Radhakrishna, Kiran Bhardwaj, Hema Srinivasan, for Arvind Kumar Sharma, S.V. Deshpande, Raj Kumar Mehta, P.N. Gupta, B.B. Singh, Arvind Verma, Himinder Lal, Anil Mittal, Sheela Goel and Kailash Chand, Advocates, for Appearing Parties

Honble VARIAVA, J.–In these Appeals and Writ Petitions the question for consideration, by this Bench, is the constitutional validity of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25-O, as it now stands, was incorporated by the Amendment Act 46 of 1982. (for sake of convenience the said Section will hereinafter be referred to as the amended Section 25-O). In some of these matters the constitutional validity of Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is in question. Section 6-W is identical to amended Section 25-O. Even though in this Judgment reference is made only to Section 25-O, what is set out herein will equally apply to Section 6-W. For considering the constitutional validity of these Sections it is not necessary to note the facts in each case. Therefore the facts are not being set out.

(2). In the case of Excel Wear Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1) a Constitution Bench struck down Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (as it then stood). Thereafter the constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act (as it then stood) was considered by a Constitution Bench in the case of Workmen vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (2). In Meenakshi Mills case this Court, after referring to Excel Wears case, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 25-N. These Appeals and Writ Petitions have been referred to a Constitution Bench with the following observation:

``The common question that arises for consideration relates to the constitutional validity of Section 25(0) of the Industrial. Disputes Act as introduced by Central Act No. 46 of 1982 and Section 25(0) as applicable in the State of M.P. by virtue of M. P. Act No. 32 of 1983 as well as Section 6(W) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The earlier provision contained in Section 25(0) was struck down by this Court in Excel Wear Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The learned counsel for the employers in support of their submissions assailing the validity of the said provisions have placed reliance on various observations in the judgment in Excel Wears case. On behalf of the workmen reliance has been placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench in Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr. (supra). Since the questions raised involve interpretation of the various observations in the judgment in Excel Wears case as well as in Meenakshi Mills case, we consider it appropriate that these matters are heard by a Constitution Bench. It is, therefore directed that all these matters be placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India for suitable directions.

(3). It must be mentioned that even amongst the High Courts there is a conflict of opinion. Some of the High Courts have held that the amended Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act and/or Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act still suffers from the substantial vice pointed out in Excel Wears case and is therefore unconstitutional. Some other High Court have, relying on Meenakshi Mills case, upheld the validity of amended Section 25-O and/or Section 6-W.

(4). At this stage a submission made by Ms. Jaising needs to be set out. Ms. Jaising

Click Here to Read the rest of this document