M/S CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 1182 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 8 S.C.R 1182 
MIS CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
v 
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7211 of 2005) 
MAY 16, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.SATHASIVAM, JJ] 
INDUSTRUAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947: 
s. 25-N(6)-lnterpretation of - HELD: A plain reading of 
C the provision makes the position clear that two courses aM 
open - Power is conferred on the appropriate Government t(• 
either on its own motion on an application made, review its 
order or refer the matter to the Tribunal - Whether one or the 
other of the courses could be adopted depends on the fact of 
D each case, surrounding circumstances and several other rel-
.... 
evant factors - Interpretation of Statutes . 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Construing a provision - Held: When the language of 
E the provision is plain and unambiguous and admits of only 
one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises, 
for the Act speaks for itself. 
WORDS AND PHRASES: 
F 
Word 'or' occurring in s. 25-N(6) of Industrial Disputes 
Act - Connotation of . 
The appellant company made an application in terms 
of s. 25 - N (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the 
Specified Authority to retrench 280 workmen out of 509 
G workmen working in one of its Unit. The application was 
partly allowed granting permission to retrench 276 work-
• 
men on the conditions mentioned in the order. The order 
was challenged by filing applications uls 25-N (6) of the 
Act for review of the decision or to refer the matter for 
H 
1182 
MIS CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. v. 
1183 
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR 
adjudication. The application was rejected. However, the A 
High Court, in writ petition, held that merely because re-
view application was rejected, reference could not be said 
to be barred u/s 25-N (6) of the Act, and accordingly, di-
rected the Specified Authority to refer the matter for adju-
dication to the Industrial Tribunal. 
B 
In the instant appeal filed by the employer, it was con-
" 
tended for the appellant that once the review application 
was disposed of, there was no scope for further making 
a reference, in view of the determinative expression "or" 
and the clear language of s. 25-N (6) of the Act, which pro- c 
vided for the alternatives and did not prescribe a refer-
ence after the review petition had been rejected. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of the provision of s. 25-N D 
.,. 
(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shows that two 
options are open. Power is conferred on the appropriate 
Government to either on its own motion, or on an appli-
cation made, review its order or refer the matter to the Tri-
bunal. Whether one or the other of the courses could be 
E 
adopted depends on the fact of each case, the surround-
ing circumstances and several other relevant factors. 
[para 8 and 15] [1187-H; 1188-A; 1189-D] 
Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. 
(2002 (2) sec 578 - distinguished. 
F 
Excel Wear v. Union of India and Ors. 1978 (4) SCC 224; 
Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. And Ors. v. Meenakshi Mills 
Ltd. And Anr 1992 (3) SCC 336- referred to. 
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Mis Abdu/bhai G 
Faizullabhai and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1455; Rajya General 
-t· 
Kamgar Manda/ and Ors. v. Vice President, Packart Press 
Div. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, Baroda and Ors. 1995 II 
CLR 613- cited. 
H 
1184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is 
normally conjunctive. But at times they are read as vice 
versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legis-
lature as disclosed from the context. [para 12] [1188-E] 
B 
Fakir Mohd. (dead) by Lrs. V Sita Ram 2002 (1) SCC 
741 :- referred to. 
1.3 When the words of a statute are clear, plain or 
unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only 
one meaning, no question of construction of a statute 
c arises, for the Act speaks of itself, and the courts are 
bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of con-
sequences. [para 17 and 19] [1189-F; 1190-A] 
State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh AIR 2005 SC 294 
and Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 271; -
D relied on 
E 
Sussex Peerage case (1844) 11CJ&F85 - referred to. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7211 
of 2005 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 5.4.2005 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 693/2004 in 
W.P. No. 1947/2003 
T.R. Andhyarujina, Ranjit Kumar, J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.