SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA (K.V.) MUMBAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 28-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
--1 
I 
• 
, 
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA (K.V.) MUMBAI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 25-0 (1) (3) and (5)-
Application for closure of mill-Withdrawal off or amicable settlement 
of the dispute, without liberty to file fresh application-Second c 
application seeking same relief after failure of settlement-
Maintainability of-Held: Second application was maintainable-
Withdrawal of first application was bonafide--Order of the authority 
>I 
allowing to withdraw the first application cannot be deemed to be 
' 
order refusing to grant permission, as the order was not passed on D 
merits-Therefore, s. 25-0(5) has no application-An application 
under s.25-0(1) is not a suit, therefore, 0.23, r.1(4) CPCwill not apply 
to such an application-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0r. 23 r. 1 
(4). 
Judgment-Precedential value of-Ascertainment-Held: E 
Precedential value of a judgment to be ascertained taking into account 
facts of the case and not out of the context-Precedent. 
.... 
Respondent No.3- Company, suffered heavy loss. With the 
object to reduce its operational cost, it offered Voluntary Retirement F 
Scheme (VRS) to its employees. Out of7500 employees, except 275, 
all opted for VRS. Manufacturing activities of its mill came to 
standstill. Company, therefore, filed an application u/s 25-0 of 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission for closure of the 
·'.r 
mill. Respondent-Company received a letter from the Deputy G 
Labour Commissioner, calling for a meeting, making an effort for 
amicable settlement between the parties. Company agreed for the 
meeting and in order to settle the dispute, withdrew its application. 
However, the effort for settlement failed. Hence, the Company filed 
645 
H 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A fresh application u/s 25-0. Appellant-Union opposed the 
entertainment of the second closure application on the ground that 
it was not maintainable in view of the fact that previous application 
for closure was withdrawn without liberty from the concerned 
authority to file a fresh application and also filed a writ petition 
B seeking direction to the authority concerned for not proceeding 
further in relation to the second closure application. High Court 
dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the application for withdrawal 
of the first petition under Section 25-0(1) of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 was made bona fide because the respondent-company had 
received a letter from the Deputy Labour Commissioner calling for 
. ' 
a meeting of the parties so that an effort could be made for an 
i. 
D amicable settlement. In fact, the respondent-company could have 
waited for the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing of its 
application under Section 25-0(1), on the expiry of which the 
application would have deemed to have been allowed under Section 
25-0(3). The fact that it did not do so, and instead applied for 
E withdrawal of its application under Section 25-0(1), shows its bona 
fide. [Para 20] (654-F, G; 655-A] 
F 
Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 
Gwalior and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 88, distinguished. 
1.2. It cannot be said that the order of the Labour 
Commissioner allowing the respondent-company to withdraw its first 
closure application should be deemed to be an order refusing to grant 
permission, and hence a fresh application under Section 25-0(1) could 
not be filed before the expiry of one year from the date of the said 
order. Section 25-0(5) only applies when an order is passed on merits 
G either granting or refusing to grant permission for closure. Since in 
the present case no order on merits was passed, but only an order 
permitting withdrawal of the closure application was passed, Section 
25-0 (5) has no application. [Para 26) [656-C, D, E) 
H 
1.3. Although the C.P .C. does not strictly apply to proceedings 
I 
I 
' 
" 
., 
·~ 
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA (K.V) MUMBAI 
647 
v. STATE 
under Section 25-0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or other judicial 
or quasi-judicial proceedings under in any other Act, some of the 
general principles in the CPC may be applicable. However, this does 
not mean that all provisions in the CPC will strictly apply to 
proceedings which are not suits. No doubt, Order XXIII Rule 1(4) 
CPC states th

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