Leather and Leather Goods Democratic Labour Union vs Joint Commissioner of Labour and Another

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The second respondent - Management by application dated January 19, 1994, sought a permission for retrenchment of

100 junior - most workmen as contemplated u/s 25-N(i)(a) or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), in view of

the world wide recession and consequent lack of orders for finished leather and leather products, and due to the reduction in monthly production

and increase in overheads.

Pursuant to the said application, no doubt, the first respondent conducted an enquiry and both sides were permitted to file their documents.

While the second respondent - Management marked several documents, with regard to the annual production and stock position of the materials,

the same were objected by the petitioner - union, requesting the first respondent to make an enquiry and give an opportunity to the petitioner -

union to object those documents and to hold an enquiry in the manner contemplated u/s 25-N(3) of the Act, which reads as follows :

Section 25-N : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of Workmen:

(3) Where an application for permission under Sub-section (1) has been made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority, after

making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the

persons interested in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, the interest of

the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy

of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen.

However, the first respondent holding that, what was contemplated u/s 25-N of the Act was only to provide a reasonable opportunity of being

heard to the Management, but does not enable the petitioner - union to object the filing of documents by the second respondent-Management; nor

require the Management to mark the documents as exhibits through the evidence; nor to permit the petitioner to cross examine the second

respondent Management witnesses, by proceedings dated May 16, 1994, which is impugned in the above writ petition, permitted the second

respondent to retrench 45 workmen in the petitioner Union. Hence, the petitioner -Union filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari to

call for the records and papers in connection with the impugned order of the first respondent made in Retrenchment Application No. 1/94, dated

May 16, 1994 and quash the same.

Placing reliance on Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Another, : learned counsel for the petitioner

Union contends that the first respondent, while exercising the powers conferred u/s 25-N of the Act ought to have functioned as a constitutional

authority but not as a mere administrative agency.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Management contends that the findings of the first respondent in the impugned

proceedings, is justified and the same is well within his jurisdiction, as per Section 25-N of the Act.

It is well settled in law that the permission sought by the first respondent authority u/s 25-N of the Act, should be a speaking order, and that is

why, the statute contemplates an enquiry, giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer as contemplated u/s 25-N(3) of the Act.

The Apex Court interpreting the powers of the authority u/s 25-N of the Act in Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. case (supra), referred supra,

had held that in the matter of refusing or granting permission for retrenchment, the appropriate Government or the authority should not exercise

powers which are purely administrative but should exercise powers which are quasi-judicial in nature, as rightly relied by"" Mr. S. Kumarswamy,

the learned counsel for the petitioner-workmen.

That apart, a close reading of Section 25-N(3) of the Act, also makes it clear that it is not a mere enquiry, after giving a reasonable opportunity

of being heard to the employer and employee concerned, would satisfy and compliance of Section 25-N(3) of the Act, but also provides an

opportunity to persons interested in such retrenchment also. Moreover, genuineness and the adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, as

well as, the interest of the workmen and of other relevant factors, should be taken care of, which, in my considered opinion, implies a right to

examine and cross-examine the witnesses, to substantiate as to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, as well as the

interest of the workmen opposing such retrenchment, which, spirit and object of the procedure contemplated u/s 25-N(3) of the Act, had been

obviously overlooked by the first respondent in passing the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner union, refusing to cross-examine

the Management, and opposing the documents as to their genuineness.

On the other hand, the first respondent in his proceedings dated May 16, 1994 had held that recording the evidence to prove or disprove the

genuineness of such reasons arc not mandatory, holding that the documents filed by the second respondent - Management arc on the face of it

taken into consideration, while passing the impugned proceedings. The approach of the first respondent in this regard is contrary to the spirit and

object of Section 25-N(3) of the Act, as observed above, which requires me to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated May 16, 1994,

and to quash the same and to remit the matter to the first respondent to hold a fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, in any

event within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently W.M.P.No. 1602 of 1994 is closed.