STATE OF WEST BENGALS Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the Judgment dated 26th March, '99 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 181 of '99 whereby the writ Application filed by Respondent No. 1 Hindustan Motors Ltd. challenging the Order dated 5/1/99 passed by the Appellant No. 2 in respect of the laying off of the employees of the Respondent No. 1 in terms of section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed. The learned single Judge while quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 5.1.99 passed by the Appellant had issued directions to him to consider afresh the case relating to the Application of Respondent No. 1 seeking permission to lay off the employees in terms of section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act after taking into consideration all the relevant factors of the case and after hearing the parties. Appellant No. 2 was actually directed to pass a reasoned order within three weeks from the date of communication of the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the Appeal may be summarised as herein-below: Respondent No. 1 Messers Hindustan Motors Ltd. is an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956. It has a passenger car-manufacturing unit in the State of West Bengal. On 26th November, 1998 under sub-section (1) of section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Act for short) read with sub-Rule 1 of Rule 76A of the West Bengal Industrial Dispute Rules 1958, it applied to the respondents for permission to lay off for three working days in a week with immediate effect, it its factory at Hind Motor, employing a total of 11010 employees. Reasons in support of the application seeking the lay off were detailed in the annexure filed with the application. It was averred that because of severe recession in the Indian Automobile Industry as being currently faced, all the Automobile Manufacturers are being compelled to resort to steep production cuts and drastic cost reduction measures to remain afloat in the recessionary environment. For ready reference we extract herein-below para-1 of the annexure-A to the application spelling out the reasons for seeking laying off of the employees:

(3.) The application dated 26/11/98 was accompanied by various other documents and annexure. On 5.1.99 Applellant No. 2 Joint Secretary in the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal passed an order in terms of sub-section(4) of section 25-M of the Act in respect of the aforesaid application of Respondent No. 1 refusing to accord permission for laying off on the ground that no case for laying off as proposed by the Management of Respondent No. 1 was made out. This Order was communicated to Respondent No. 1 by the appellants through a covering letter dated 14th January '99. Immediately Respondent No. 1 challenged this Order by filing writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned single Judge who as noticed at the very beginning of this Judgment, vide Order dated 26th March '99 allowed the writ application partly by setting aside the order dated 5.1.99 and issuing directions to Appellant No. 2 to reconsider the matter. The prayer of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 for issuance of writ of Mandamus against the appellants for granting permission to it to implement the Scheme of lay off as proposed in its application dated 26.11.98 was not granted by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 Writ petitioner has preferred cross-objections in the present Appeal in respect of the part of the Judgment of the learned single Judge whereby such prayer was not granted.