LexM/S. ORISSA TEXTILE AND STEEL LTD. versus STATE OE ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M/S. ORISSA TEXTILE AND STEEL LTD. v. ST A TE OE ORISSA AND ORS. JANUARY 17, 2002 [S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Labour Laws : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2~-0 (as amended by Amendment A B c Act 46of1982) and Section 25-N-Constitutional validity of Section 25-0- Unamended provision contained in the Section struck down by Constitution Bench in Excel Wear's case-Subsequently in Meenakshi Mills' case constitutional validity of Section 25-N upheld differentiating the Section with D unamended Section 25-0-Held, amended Section is not ultra vires the Constitution and is saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution-Principles applicable in Meenakshi Mills' case held relevant in deciding the constitutional validity of Section 25-0 since it is in substance akin to Section 25-N- Constitution of India, 1950-Article. 19(/)(g) and 19(6)-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6-W. E Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141-Precedent-Consideration of. by Constitution Court-Held, Constitution Court should form its own opinion about a case and consider the effect of a precedent by reading it over again and should not rely upon the gloss placed on that precedent by some other F decision. Words and Phrases : 'In the interest of general pub/ ic '-Meaning of-In the context of Section 25-0 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 19(6) of Constitution of G India, 1950. • The issue before the Court in ·the present appeals was the constitutional validity of Section 25-0 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Amendment Act 46of1982 and Section 6-W ofU.P. Industrial _ Disputes Act, 1947. Section 6-W is identical to amended Section 25-0. H 309 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) I S.C.R. A Constitution Bench in Excel Wear etc. v. Union of India, (1979) I SCR 1009 had struck down the constitutional validity of Section 25-0 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it stood before the Amendment Act 46 of r 1982. Thereafter in Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1992) 3 SCC 336, where the constitutional validity of Section 25-N was in question, it was held by the Constitution Bench that the Section did not suffer from the B vice of constitutionality and the considerations whi~h weighed in Excel Wear 's case could not be applied for validity of Section 25-N as there was difference between Section 25-N and Section 25-0 (unamended). The questions referred to the present Constitution Bench in the C present appeals were whether the vices pointed out in Excel Wear's case had been cured by the amended Section 25-0 and whether the principles laid down in Meenakshi Mills' case applied to amended Section 25-0. It was contended that since in Meenakshi Mills' case the Constitution Bench of this Court had extracted the reasons why in Excel Wear's case D Section 25-0 was struck down, therefore, the decision of Meenakshi Mills' case would be binding on this Court and it should not go into Excel Wear's case to find out the reasons why Section 25-0 was struck down. Answering the questions referred to it, the Constitution Bench. E HELD : I.I. It cannot be said that the principles laid down in Meenakshi Mills' case have no relevance in deciding the constitutional validity of amended Section 25-0. Amended Section 25-0 is in substance akin to Section 25-N (as it then stood). It contains many new provisions and substantially amends/alters the other provisions. Though Meenakshi , Mills' case dealt with retrenchment, the same principles would apply, as F a closure also has the effect of termination of service, though of all the workmen. Also both Section 25-N and Section 25-0 are in Chapter V. The objects and reasons for enacting these provisions are the same and must be kept in mind while considering amended Section 25-0. [326-D) G 1.2. Amended Section 25-0 is not ultra-vires the Constitution. It is saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution. 1.3. The reason why unamended Section 25-0 was struck down was that it did not require giving of reasons. Under the unamended Section 25-0, the Order was to be passed on a subjective satisfaction of the H appropriate Government. The amended Section 25-0 provided that the j r ORISSA TEXTILE AND STEEL LTD. v. STATEOFORISSA 311 appropriate Government before passing an order is bound to make an A enquiry. The order passed by the appropriate Government has to be in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.