GBA WORKERS UNION Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant - GBA Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as 'Union') challenging the order dtd. 15/3/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by it, where directions were sought to quash the order dtd. 1/3/2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Secretary, Labour, Chandigarh Administration - respondent No.1, stating therein that application under Sec. 25 N(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by M/s Groz-Beckert Asia Private Limited - respondent No.2 on 1/12/2020, seeking permission to retrench 37 workmen, the said permission is deemed to have been granted on expiry of 60 days from the date of filing of the application.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate and take into consideration the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Jayhind Engineering and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2004 (2) S.C.T. 443, wherein it has been held that once enquiry notice is issued by the State Government on receipt of an application, running of the period of 60 days, as provided under the statute, stands arrested and unless an order is passed on the said enquiry, the deeming fiction as provided for under the statute would not operate. His further contention is that the challenge to the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11255-11256 of 2004, titled as 'Jayhind Engineering and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others', stands dismissed vide order dtd. 16/12/2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, on this basis, submits that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot sustain as the deeming fiction would not come into effect till a decision is taken by the Competent Authority on an enquiry which has been initiated within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of an application by the Employer for retrenchment of the employees.

(3.) On the other hand, learned senior counsel for caveator - respondent No.2 submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based upon proper appreciation of the provisions of Sec. 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He contends that the learned Single Judge has not only referred to and relied upon the various judgments which have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with and interpreting not only Sec. 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but also Sec. 25 M and 25-O of the said Act, which are para materia to the provisions which is the subject matter of the present lis. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the effective remedy of judicial review in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, learned senior counsel states that the learned Single Judge has rightly and appropriately left the matter open for the appellant - Union and the workmen to avail of their remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It, therefore, cannot be said that there is no effective appropriate statutory remedy available to the appellant - Union especially in the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd.'s case (supra).