The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confer a vested right on the employer or employee to make an application for review or reference against the order of granting or refusing permission to retrench a workman. The court emphasized that the remedy is optional and once one prayer is declined, the other cannot be considered.

JUDGMENT

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. - The present Writ Appeal is filed under Sec. 2(2) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam 2005 being aggrieved by the order dtd. 21/10/2021 passed in WP No.5344/2020 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3 and 4 has been allowed and the order dtd. 17/2/2020 rejecting reference application u/S.25-N(6) has been set aside and the respondent No.2 has been directed to refer the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.

2. Facts of the case are that the appellant AVTEC Limited submitted an application on 25/10/2019 u/S.25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') seeking permission for retrenchment of workmen from its Pithampur plant. The notices were issued by the Labour Commissioner and on an objection raised by the Union/Workmen, the said application was rejected for want of procedure and liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh application u/S.25-N of the Act. The respondent No.3 Union moved an application for reference on the said order whereby the appellant was permitted to file fresh application. Since the application filed by the appellant was not rejected and, therefore, no reference could have been made to industrial court. The reference is permissible against an order granting or refusing to grant permission for retrenchment, however, Union challenged the order dtd. 19/12/2019 in WP No.247/2020 before this Court and since the permission for retrenchment was already granted during the pendency of the petition the said petition was dismissed having been rendered infructuous by order dtd. 7/2/2020. According to the appellant, the plant was facing financial problem and was struggling for its existence and, therefore, the application for permission for retrenchment was filed u/S.25-N of the Act. It was also stated that appellant faced dire financial conditions and accumulated loss of Rs.141.19 crores in the last six financial years between 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 and, therefore, sought permission for retrenchment of 217 workmen out of 356 workmen. The authority specified in the Act vide its order dtd. 3/2/2020 passed an order granting permission to appellant to retrench 217 workmen as had been applied for. After passing the order dtd. 3/2/2020 the respondent Union and the workmen had submitted an application seeking reference to the industrial tribunal and few workmen submitted application seeking review of the order as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) of the Act. Specified authority by order dtd. 14/2/2020 rejected the application submitted by three workmen and decided not to review the order on the application and also rejected the application for reference filed by respondent No.3 and 4 on the ground that since the application for review has already been refused and, therefore, the prayer for reference at the instance of the respondent No.3 and 4 cannot be decided as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(6) and the law laid down by the division bench of this court in WP No.1368/1997 Ujjain Mill Mazdoor Sangh and others Vs. State of MP (1999) 1 LLJ 1197 (MP) wherein it has been held that in Sec.25-N(6) it is not mandatory for the authority to refer the case to the tribunal. This is voluntary provision and since by speaking order the prayer for review has already been rejected filed by three employees, the application for reference filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 was rejected. It was further held that there is no propriety or legal basis for the trial on the same point as the detailed speaking order has been passed as per the provisions of Sec.25-N(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.3 and 4 filed a Writ petition No.5344/2020 and challenged the order and sought relief of quashment of orders Annexure P/5 and P/8 by which the reference was declined and sought a direction to the respondent No.2 to refer the matter for adjudication to the industrial tribunal.

3. Senior Counsel for the appel