The deeming fiction of permission for retrenchment under Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the availability of an effective alternative remedy for the appellant under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. - This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant - GBA Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as 'Union') challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by it, where directions were sought to quash the order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Secretary, Labour, Chandigarh Administration - respondent No.1, stating therein that application under Section 25 N(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by M/s Groz-Beckert Asia Private Limited - respondent No.2 on 01.12.2020, seeking permission to retrench 37 workmen, the said permission is deemed to have been granted on expiry of 60 days from the date of filing of the application.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate and take into consideration the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Jayhind Engineering and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2004 (2) S.C.T. 443, wherein it has been held that once enquiry notice is issued by the State Government on receipt of an application, running of the period of 60 days, as provided under the statute, stands arrested and unless an order is passed on the said enquiry, the deeming fiction as provided for under the statute would not operate. His further contention is that the challenge to the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11255-11256 of 2004, titled as 'Jayhind Engineering and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others', stands dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, on this basis, submits that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot sustain as the deeming fiction would not come into effect till a decision is taken by the Competent Authority on an enquiry which has been initiated within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of an application by the Employer for retrenchment of the employees.

In any case, he asserts that when an undertaking had been given and a statement made in this Court by the counsel for the Chandigarh Administration i.e. in CWP No.3886 of 2021, which was preferred by the appellant - Union and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.02.2021, where counsel for the Chandigarh Administration, on instructions from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Union Territory Chandigarh, stated that the application under Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, moved by respondent No.2 - company was under consideration of the authority and the appropriate order shall be passed before 28.02.2021, the authorities were required to pass an order on the enquiry, which had been initiated by the Secretary, Labour especially when the parties have been heard on 25.01.2021, which is much prior to the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of submission of the application dated 01.12.2020. His submission is that there has been intentional delay on the part of the Chandigarh Administration in passing the order on the enquiry to help out respondent No.2 - company and granting it the benefit of the deemed permission on expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of submission of the application.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the learned Single Judge has misread the provisions as contained in Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has proceeded on mere technicalities without taking into consideration the intent and purpose for which the said provisions have been enacted. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Constitution Bench of five judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 2002 (1) S.C.T. 1017 to contend that the Government is bound to make an enquiry before passing the order, the requirement to make an enquiry postulates an enquiry into the corr