9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding the authority's power to make a reference after rejecting a review application.
Summary: The appeal challenged the Bombay High Court's judgment upholding the view that the appropriate Government/specified authority can make a reference for adjudication under Section 25-N(6) of the Act even after rejecting a review application. The appellant company sought to retrench workmen at its Borivli unit, leading to a legal battle with workers unions over the review and reference process. The Single Judge and Division Bench held that a rejected review application does not bar a reference, contrary to the appellant's argument. The appellant contended that the provision's language is clear, using the term "or" which should not be substituted with "and." On the other hand, respondents argued that the reference provides additional protection and urgency, citing precedents like Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. case. The Court analyzed Section 25-N(6) and relevant case laws to determine the authority's power to review and refer matters for adjudication. It emphasized that the word "or" in the provision signifies two distinct options available to the appropriate Government or specified authority. The Court clarified that the review and reference processes serve different purposes and are not cumulative but alternative. Ultimately, the Court held that the appeal should be allowed based on the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, emphasizing that when statutory language is precise, Courts must interpret it in its natural sense. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the plain meaning of the law, rather than speculating on its spirit or intent.
|
