PAPNASAM LABOUR UNION Vs. MADURA COATS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th April, 1981 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 1119 of 1977. The said writ petition was moved by the respondent No. 1. Madura Coats Ltd., for a declaration that Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it stood under the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1976 in so far as it required prior permission to be obtained to effect lay off is ultra vires and void. The writ petitioner respondent No. 1 also prayed that the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Madras should be restrained form enforcing the provisions of the said Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act in respect of the lay off application being application No. 4 of 1976 made by the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, for quashing order dated 11th September 1976 by which the said lay off application was rejected by the Joint Labour Commissioner. Along with the said Writ Petition No. 1119 of 1977, a number of similar writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequential prosecutional penalty for the lay off in contravention of Section 25 M were heard by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and by one common judgment, all the said writ petitions were disposed of.

(2.) The Division Bench of the Madras High Court inter alia held that Section 25-M as it stood under the said amendment Act, 1976 was constitutionally invalid for the reasons given by this Court in invalidating Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the decision rendered in Excel Wear v. Union of India (1979) 1 SCR 1009. The Madras High Court further held that in view of its finding that Section 25-M was constitutionally invalid, it was unnecessary for the Court to go into the validity or otherwise on the orders passed by the authorities which had been impugned in some of the cases before the High Court. The High Court also rejected the prayer for granting leave to appeal to this Court by indicating that as the High Court had followed the judgment of the Apex Court in Excel Wear's case (supra) there was no occasion to hold that the impugned decision involved a substantial question of law of general importance which was required to be decided by the Apex Court.

(3.) For the purpose of appreciating the respective contentions of the parties in this appeal. The provisions of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1776 is set out as hereunder:-