KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED Vs. PAINTS EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the order dated 5-5-2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to effect closure of its Lower Parel Establishment and directing them to pay full wages to all the concerned workmen with effect from 2-2-2003. The petitioner had applied under section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "I.D. Act") for permission to close its Lower Parel Unit. That application was allowed on 27-3-2003 by the Commissioner of Labour. On 15-4-2003 the respondent union applied for review or reference of the permission of closure under section 25-O(5) of the I. D. Act. On 24-4-2003, the Commissioner Labour who is the Specified Authority under section 25-0 declined to review permission for closure and instead referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The question is whether by declining to review, the Specified Authority has rejected the application for review. Therefore, whether the Specified Authority could have thereafter referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under section 25-O(5) of the I.D. Act.

(2.) Mr. Cama, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the petitioners application for closure is passed without authority of law since the order making the reference dated 24-4-2003 was itself without authority of law and incompetent. The learned counsel relies on section 25-O(5) of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in Cable Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Labour and ors., 2008(II) CLR 545 interpreting an identical scheme section 25N of the I.D. Act. Section 25-O(5) reads as follows :

(3.) This contention is clearly supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cable Corporation of India, interpreting section 25-N(6), which reads as follows :-