M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 725 · Decided: 18-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-
... 
• >-
; 
... 
M.C. MEHTA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India: 
Articles 32 and 2 I-Environment pollution by industries-By its Order 
dated 8. 7. I 996, Supreme Court directed closure of various industries and C 
directed them to relocate-While so directing, certain benefits and incentives 
were given both to the industries and the workmen vide para 9 (a) to (j)-
By a subsequent order dated 3I.12.1996 Supreme Court modified the order 
dated 8.7.1996 permitting relocation outside NC.T. Delhi-Industries, before 
such relocation, issued notice to the workmen to opt by a specified date to D 
shift or else they would be deemed to be retrenched w.ej 30.l/.1996-
Workmen, pursuing review of Order dated 31.12.1996, intimated the 
management vide their letter dated 6.1.1997 their willingness to relocate 
subject to the outcome of their review before Supreme Court - vide clauses 
(a) and (b) of para 9 of the order dated 8.7.1996 the workmen had to be 
treated in service till the time of restarting of the industries at the relocated E 
place-Held, the order dated 31.12.1996 permitting relocation of industry 
:> 
outside Delhi could not be deemed to amount to an option not to join at the 
proposed place of relocation-the letter of the workmen dated 6.1.1997 
could not be treated as a conditional option to rejoin because they are not 
obligated to give any option to rejoin but they could have opted not to 
rejoin-The reliance on clauses (c), (d) and (e) of para 9 of the order dated F 
8.7.1996 to contend that workmen not exercising option by 31.12.1996 
would be deemed to have been retrenched wef 30.11.1996 is totally 
misplaced-As per clauses (a) and (b) of para 9 of the order dated 8.7.1996, 
the workmen had to be treated in service till the time of restarting of the 
industry at the relocated place-Hence all the workmen except those who G 
exercised or would exercise an option not to join, allowed to rejoin at the 
place of relocation under the supervision of Dy. Labour Commissioners of the 
relocated place as well as Delhi-Those workmen not joining or refusing to 
rejoin by the specified date were directed to be retrenched w.ej 30. l/.1996 
and to be paid only one year's (not six year's) wages plus compensation as 
725 
H 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A per Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act-labour law-
Retrenchment-Compensation-Jndustrial Disputes Act, I 947, Section 
25-F(b). 
Articles I 37 and 32-Review of Supreme Court order-Held, the right 
of any party to seek review of orders is a right which is lawfully exercised 
B and cannot be treated as a breach of the order passed against which review 
is sought. 
By an order dated 8.7.1996, Supreme Court directed closure of 168 
industries and whil1~ so directing various other directions were given 
including the grant of incentives and benefits to industries willing to relocate 
C and also payment of various amount to the workmen in para 9 (a) to (I) of 
its order. Initially the industry was not prepared to relocate and thus sought 
to retrench the employees and to pay whatever was payable to the workmen 
under order dated 8.7.1996 but at the suggestion of Supreme Court agreed 
to reconsider its decision which was recorded by a subsequent order dated 
D 4.12.1996. By this order Supreme Court modified direction 9(d) relating to 
payment of back wages as "six years wages" instead of "one year wages" 
in case the industry decided to close down. After reconsidering the matter, 
the industry decided to relocate to Baddi in Himachal Pradesh, and issued 
notice to the workmen who were willing to be relocated at the new site and 
if they so report they would be entitled to the benefits of the order of Supreme 
E Court dated 8.7.1996 and those who were not willing to shift would be deemed 
to have been retrenched w.e.f. 30.Jl.1996 provided they were in continuous 
service as defined in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Eight 
unions of the workmen sent a reply stating that the industry has violated the 
orders of Supreme Court as it was relocating to the State of Himachal 
F Pradesh rather than in N.C.T. Delhi as envisaged in the Order dated 8.7.1996. 
But ignoring this reply, the industry published a notice on 30.12.1996 
reiterating its plan to relocate in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 
At t!Jis stage, the industries approached Supreme Court for modif

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.