RAJYA GENERAL KAMDAR MANDAL Vs. VICE PREIDENT PACKART PRESS DIVISION OF AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India requires an interpretation of sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner also seeks to challenge the vires of sub-sec. (3) of the said Section.

(2.) . The facts leading to the present petition are as follows : The respondent No. 1 herein is the Vice-President of Packart Press, a Division of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Company or employer'). The second respondent is the Commissioner of Labour and Specified Authority of the appropriate Government under Sec. 25-O of the Act. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are State of Gujarat and Government of India respectively. The petitioner is a trade Union representing the workmen working in the said Packart Press. Respondent No. 1 Company prints the necessary packing materials and supplies the same to Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., which is its parent company. The Packart Press is stated to be employing about 150 workmen. For various reasons the first respondent Company was not in a position to carry on its business and, therefore, preferred an application dated 8th April 1993 to the Specified Authority concerned for closure as required under Sec. 25-O of the Act. The Specified Authority granted the said application by its order dated 9th June 1993, effective from 15th July 1993. The petitioner Union preferred an application for the review of the said order or for making reference under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 25-O of the Act, though it pressed only for reference before the authority concerned. The said application was made on 10th June 1993 and it came to be rejected by the said authority by its order dated 19th June 1993. The petitioner Union challenged the said order by filing writ petition in this Court, being Special Civil Application No. 6695 of 1993. This Court by its order dated 14th July 1993 set aside the order dated 19th June 1993, remanded the matter to the Specified Authority with a direction to reconsider and decide the application for review afresh latest by 26th July 1993 in accordance with law. The Court directed the respondents to maintain the status quo as on the date of the order until 30th July 1993. As recorded in the judgment, the points with respect to the validity of sub-sec. (3) Sec. 25-O of the Act and the order dated 9th June 1993 were not argued before the Bench and the Court declined to express any opinion on the validity of both them.

(3.) . Thereafter, the Specified Authority concerned afforded an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned but again by its order dated 5th August 1983 rejected the review application and confirmed the order dated 9th June 1993. By the same order it also declined to refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. It is this composite order passed by the Specified Authority which is challenged in this petition before this Court; along with the order dated 9th June 1993 and the validity of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 25-O of the Act. This petition came to be admitted on 1st October 1993 after hearing both the parties. By the same order, interim stay of impugned order was also directed to be maintained though ad interim ex parte stay had been obtained from 9th August 1993 onwards. Civil Application No. 57 of 1995 is filed by the first respondent Company on 28th December 1994 seeking to vacate the interim relief. It states that the Company has no work, the electric supply is cut off from 6th February 1994 and that it is required to pay idle wages. We are told that wages are paid till December 1994. It is further stated in the Application that heavy dues towards rent, excise, etc. over Rs. 45 lacs have also mounted up. The landlord has given notice of legal action in view of arrears of rent. This application is also heard alongwith the main petition.