Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The second respondent-Management by application dated 19-1-1994, sought a permission for retrenchment of 100 junior - most workmen as contemplated under section 25(N)(i)(a) or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') In view of the world wide recession and consequent lack of orders for finished leather and leather products; and due to the reduction in monthly production and increase in overheads. Pursuant to the said application, no doubt, the first respondent conducted an enquiry and both sides were permitted to file their documents. While the second respondent - Management marked several documents, with regard to the annual production and stock position of the materials, the same were objected by the petitioner-union, requesting the first respondent to make an enquiry and give an opportunity to the petitioner-union to object those documents and to hold an enquiry in the manner contemplated under Section 25(N)(3) of the Act, which reads as follows :- Section 25N : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of Workmen : (3) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) has been made, the appropriate government or the specified authority after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the persons interested in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, the interest of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen. However, the first respondent holding that, what was contemplated under Section 25(N) of the Act was only to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Management, but does not enable the petitioner-union to object the filing of documents by the second respondent-Management; nor require the Management to mark the documents as exhibits through the evidence; nor to permit the petitioner to cross examine the second respondent Management witnesses, by proceedings dated 16-5-1994, which is impugned in the above writ petition, permitted the second respondent to retrench 45 workmen in the petitioner Union. Hence, the petitioner-Union filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and papers in connection with the impugned order of the first respondent made in Retrenchment Application No. 1/94, dated 16-5-1994 and quash the same.Placing reliance on Workmen Of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. M.M. Ltd. reported in 1992 2 Lab LJ 294 1992 I Lab LN 1055 : (1995 Lab IC 1) the learned counsel for the petitioner Union contends that the first respondent, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 25(n) of the Act ought to have functioned as a constitutional authority but not as a mere administrative agency. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Management contends that the findings of the first respondent in the impugned proceedings, is justified and the same is well within his jurisdiction, as per Section 25(N) of the Act. It is well settled in law that the permission sought by the first respondent authority under Section 25(N) of the Act. should be a speaking order, and that is why, the statute contemplates an enquiry, giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer as contemplated under section 25(N)(3) of the Act. The Apex Court interpreting the powers of the authority under Section 25(N) of the Act in Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. case (1995 Lab) (1) (SC), referred supra, had held that in the matter of refusing or granting permission for retrenchment, the appropriate Government or the authority should not exercise powers which are purely administrative but should exercise powers which are quasi-judicial in nature, as rightly relied by Mr. S. Kumarswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner-workmen. That apart, a closure reading of section 25(N)(3) of the Act, also makes it clear that it is not a mere enquiry, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer and employee concerned, would satisfy and compliance of section 25(N)(3) of the Act, but also provides an opportunity to persons interested in such retrenchment also. That apart, a closure reading of section 25(N)(3) of the Act, also makes it clear that it is not a mere enquiry, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer and employee concerned, would satisfy and compliance of section 25(N)(3) of the Act, but also provides an opportunity to persons interested in such retrenchment also. Moreover, genuineness and the adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, as well as, the interest of the workmen and of other relevant factors, should be taken care of, which, in my considered opinion, implies a right to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, to substantiate as to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, as well as the interest of the workmen opposing such retrenchment, which, spirit and object of the procedure contemplated under Section 25(N)(3) of the Act, had been obviously overlooked by the first respondent in passing the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner union; refusing to cross-examine the Management; and opposing the documents as to their genuineness.On the other hand, the first respondent in his proceedings dated 16-5-1994 had held that recording the evidence to prove or disprove the genuineness of such reasons are not mandatory, holding that the documents filed by the second respondent - Management are on the face of it taken into consideration, while passing the impugned proceedings. The approach of the first respondent in this regard is contrary to the spirit and object of section 25(N)(3) of the Act, as observed above, which requires me to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 16-5-1994, and to quash the same and to remit the matter to the first respondent to hold a fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, in any even within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently W.M.P. No. 16602 of 1994 is closed.