M/S. EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 17-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 687 
M/S. EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3003 of 2005) 
MARCH 17, 2010 
B 
[AFTAB ALAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 10(1) and (3) and 25N 
- Lock-out of Industry - On the basis of three demands i.e. 
agitational activities of workmen, ceiling on dearness c 
allowance and retrenchment - Complaint made in respect of 
agitationa/ activities under the Maharashtra Recognition of 
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 
-
Order of Government prohibiting Jock-out -
Order 
challenged on the ground that Jock-out was prohibited without 
D 
referring the disputes viz. agitational activities of workmen and 
retrenchment, for adjudication uls. 10(1) - Held: Appropriate 
Government empowered and competent to issue the order 
prohibiting Jock-out - On facts, there was no dispute on the 
basis of demand in respect of retrenchment - Retrenchment 
E 
can be effected only after following statutory provisions 
provided therefor-A reference uls. 10(1) cannot be used to 
bypass the Scheme u/s. 25N - Once having taken resort to 
Maharashtra Act with regard to agitational activities any 
proceeding under ID Act barred by s. 59 of Maharashtra Act 
F 
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention 
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - s. 59. 
, 
ss. 10(1) and 25N - Distinction between - Explained. 
Respondent-State passed order in exercise of the G 
power u/s. 10(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
prohibiting continuance of the lock-out in the factory of 
the appellant. The order was challenged in writ petition 
which was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. The 
687 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A order was further confirmed in writ appeal by Division 
Bench of High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 
State Government derives the legal authority to prohibit 
8 a lock-out in terms of section 10(3) only after it had 
referred for adjudication all the disputes leading to the 
lock-out u/s. 10(1); that the closure of the factory being 
on three demands viz., agitational activities of the 
workmen (ii) imposition of ceiling on dearness allowance 
C and (iii) reduction of the workforce and retrenchment, and 
out of the three demands, Government having referred 
only one, concerning the ceiling on dearness allowance, 
it was not permissible to prohibit the lock-out. 
.Respondent contended that in respect of agitational 
D activities complaint already having been filed under 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention 
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 resort to 
proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was 
barred, by virtue of s. 59 of the Maharashtra Act. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In regard to the alleged agitational activities 
of the workmen, the appellant had already filed a 
complaint u/s. 26 r/w. Item Nos. 5 and 6 of Schedule Ill of 
F the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Once 
having taken resort to the provisions of this Act, any 
proceeding under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was 
barred by Section 59 of the Maharashtra Act and, 
G therefore, there was no question of any reference of this 
particular demand by the petitioner u/s. 10(1) of ID Act. 
[Para 13] [700-G-H; 701-A-C] 
2.1. The subject of retrenchment is fully covered by 
H the statute. It is not left open for the employer to make a -
EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE OF 
689 
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
demand in that connection and to get the ensuing 
A 
industrial dispute referred for adjudication in terms of 
Section 10(1) of ID Act. To say that even without following 
the provisions of Section 25N of ID Act, it is open to the 
employer to raise a demand for retrenchment of workmen 
and to ask the Government to refer the ensuing dispute 
B 
to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, would 
tantamount to substituting a completely different 
mechanism in place of the one provided for in the Act to 
determine the validity and justification of the employer's 
request for retrenchment of workers. It is true that u/s. c 
25N, the authority to grant or refuse permission for 
retrenchment is vested in the appropriate Government 
which in this case would be the State Government or the 
authority specified by it. Under Section 10(1) too, it is the 
State Government that would make a reference of the 
0 
indust

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