The present Writ Appeal is filed under Section 2(2) of Madhya

Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam 2005 being

aggrieved by the order dated 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 dated 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

3

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 dated 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 dated 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 dated 3.2.2020 passed an order

granting permission to appellant to retrench 217 workmen as had been

applied for. After passing the order dated 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 dated 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

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