UNITED WHITE METAL LTD Vs. BHARTIYA KAMGAR SENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is challenging the order dt. 8.12. 05 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 46 of 204. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated as under:

(2.) The petitioners is a company engaged in the manufacturing of steel wire ropes. On 29.12. 03, the petitioners purchased the factory undertaking of M/s. OTIS Elevators, comprising of 235 workers, on 'as is where is basis'. It is the case of the petitioners that though they purchased the factory with workers liability but due to competitiveness, globalisation and advanced technology, the petitioners could not do so and accordingly made an application under section 25-N of the Industrial dispute Act, 1947 seeking permission of the authority of the state government to retrench 116 workmen. On 17.9. 04, the Specified Authority (i. e. the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai) passed an order granting the permission to retrench 116 workers and subsequently the petitioners retrenched the said workers by complying all the legal provisions as required for retrenchment. On 22.9. 04 and 23.9. 04, Respondent and and Bhartiya kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh made an application for review of the said order dt. 17.9. 04 before the specified Authority. On 11.10. 04 the Specified authority passed an order refusing to review the earlier order but referred it to the Industrial tribunal for adjudication. On 20. 10. 04 the appropriate Government sent the matter to the industrial Tribunal by way of a reference under s. 25-N of the Act. On 2.12. 04, the petitioners filed an application for interim relief. On 11.3. 05, the petitioners filed their statement of claim before Industrial Tribunal. On 24.10. 05, the petitioners made an application to the Industrial tribunal contending that the Industrial Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to continue with the reference after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of order granting the permission u. s. 25n i. e. 17.9. 04. It is further submitted before the authority that under provision of section 25n (5) , the order of appropriate Government granting permission to retrench the employee stands lapsed on expiry of period of one year and therefore there cannot be any adjudication of the said order in reference by Industrial Tribunal. On 8.12. 05 the industrial Tribunal passed an order rejecting the contention of the petitioners and holding that reference is valid and will continue to remain valid even after expiry of period of one year from the date of which permission for retrenchment was granted. It is this order of Industrial Tribunal which is challenged before me.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the view of the Industrial Tribunal is totally perverse and contrary to the express provision of Act. He has drawn my attention to provision of section 25-N and 25-O of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has contended that provisions of section 25-O which are in paramateria to the provisions of section 25-N had come up for consideration before Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Glass Works Ltd V. State of maharasthra reported in 1996 (72) FLR 335 and the supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of section 25-O subsection 4 and 5 of the Industrial disputes Act, 47 has taken a view that once the period of one year expired the said order ceased to operate and therefore the Industrial Tribunal cannot have the Jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference about validity of the said order.