VAZIR GLASS WORKS LTD. versus MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 04-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
VAZIR GLASS WORKS LTD. 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANR. 
JANUARY 4, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : 
Ss. 25-0 (I), 25-0(2) and 25-0(5)-Review by State Government qf an 
order passed under S.25-0(2) refusing closure-Limitation for-Held, State 
Government would cease to have jurisdiction to review the order after expiry 
of one year.from date of order under review--Application for review and order 
thereon to be made before expiry qf the said time frame of one year. 
S. 25-0(5) Reference to Industrial Tribunal by State Govemment-
Appellant-company filing a review application within one year of order under 
s.25-0(2) refusing closure-State Government making a reference to Industrial 
Tribunal-Writ Petition filed in High Court challenging order of 
reference-Later. SLP filed in this Court-Meanwhile parties appean·ng be-
fore industrial Tribunal and hearing concluded-On this Court's direction 
Tribunal making award and sending it to this Court-Held, application for 
review to be Treated as.fresh application under s.25-0( I) and order o.f r4erence 
to be treated as an order on such fresh application-Time limit provided under 
s.25-0( 5) not to apply on peculiar facts qf the case-Order of r~ference though 
indicates to have been made under s.25-0(5) read with s.10(1 ), in law to be 
\ 
treated to have been made under s.25-0(5) without aid of s.10( !). 
' 
The appellant-company owned a factory wherein more than 700 
workmen were employed. It was the case of the company that on account 
of reasons beyond its control, tllte factory started incurring losses and the 
manufacturing activities in the factory were s~pped. The company offered 
voluntary retirement scheme, which was accepted by majority of the 
workmen. However, a number of workmen did not accept the scheme and 
ultimately, on 14.8,1992, the company made an application 
under 
s.25·0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for closure of the factory. The 
State Government rejected the application on 12.10.1992. On 23.2.1993 
the company made an application for review of the order. The State 
Government kept the review application pending and, after giving notice 
110 
VAZIR GLASS WORKS LTD. '· MAHARASHTRA GEN. KAMGAR UNION 111 
to Maharashtra Kamgar Union, respondent no. 1, made reference under 
A 
s.25-0(5) of the Act, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the case 
of closure made by the company. 
The respondent-Union challenged the order of reference in a writ 
petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court 
B 
dismissed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High 
Court set aside the order of the. State Government. making the reference 
to the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved, the Company filed the present 
appeal. 
' 
During the pendency of the appeal, on directions by this Court, the c 
Industrial Tribunal made the award, as parties had appeared before the 
Tribunal and the hearing had been concluded. 
It was contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in 
holding that once the period of one year expired from the date of the order 
of the Government passed under s.25-0(2) on the application under s.25-
D 
0(1), the power of review came to an and notwithstanding presentation of 
' 
an application for review within the said period of one year and pendency 
of such review application before the State Govt.; that the one year period 
for attaching the finality to the order passed under s.25-0(2) got enlarged 
till passing of the order on the review application made within the one year 
E 
time frame and as such the period of one year referred to in s.25-0(4) was 
' 
subject to review to be made nuder s.25-0(5) of the Act. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
, 
HELD : 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in 
holding that. the State Government would cease to have jnrisdiction to 
F 
review its order passed under s.25-0(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
on the application for closure of an industrial unit after expiry of one year 
from the date of rejection of such application. [118-E] 
1.2. Although it has not been expressly indicated within what period G 
a review application validly made is to be disposed of, but in view of the 
-I 
provisions ofsub-s.(4) ofs.25-0, that the order passed under s.25-0(2) of the 
Act on an application fo~ closure would remain in force for one year and 
in the absence of any embarg

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