9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 590 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the order of the Labour Commissioner dated 12.4.2007 allowing the respondent-company to withdraw its closure application dated 1.2.2007 should be deemed to be an order refusing to grant permission and hence a fresh application under Section 25-O(1) could not be filed before the expiry of one year from the date of the said order? Wheyher Section 25-O(5) only applies when an order is passed on merits either granting or refusing to grant permission for closure?
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the second closure application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Applicability of the principle laid down in Sarguja Transport Service case to the present case. 3. Interpretation of Section 25-O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to proceedings under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the second closure application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act: The respondent-company, Century Industries Textiles Limited, initially filed an application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission for closure of its textile mill. This application was later withdrawn with the intention of exploring an amicable settlement with the remaining employees. The company then filed a fresh application under the same section after the settlement efforts failed. The appellant opposed this second application, arguing that the first application was withdrawn without liberty from the concerned authority to file a fresh one. 2. Applicability of the principle laid down in Sarguja Transport Service case to the present case: The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which stated that if a writ petition is withdrawn without permission to file a fresh one, a second writ petition for the same relief is barred. The appellant argued that this principle, based on public policy, should also apply to the proceedings under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Court distinguished the present case from Sarguja Transport, noting that the withdrawal of the first application was bona fide and not for the purpose of bench-hunting or any other mala fide intent. The Court emphasized that the principle from Sarguja Transport is intended to prevent misuse of judicial processes and should be applied contextually. 3. Interpretation of Section 25-O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act: The appellant contended that the order allowing the withdrawal of the closure application should be treated as an order refusing permission, thereby invoking Section 25-O(5) which states that such an order remains in force for one year. The Court rejected this interpretation, clarifying that Section 25-O(5) applies only to orders passed on merits, either granting or refusing permission for closure. Since the withdrawal order was not on merits, Section 25-O(5) was deemed inapplicable. 4. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to proceedings under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act: The Court acknowledged that while the CPC does not strictly apply to proceedings under Section 25-O, some general principles may be relevant. The appellant cited Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC, which precludes filing a fresh suit on the same subject matter if the initial suit is withdrawn without permission. The Court clarified that this provision applies only to suits and not to applications under Section 25-O. The Court further noted that although certain principles like res judicata may apply to non-suit proceedings, the specific provisions of the CPC do not automatically extend to such cases. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent-company's actions were bona fide and that the principles from the Sarguja Transport case did not apply. The Court directed the concerned authority to expedite the decision on the fresh closure application filed by the respondent-company, emphasizing the financial burden on the company due to ongoing liabilities despite the mill's closure.
|
