Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 317 (JK)

B. B. F Industries Ltd. v. State of J&K

2017-07-14

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is admitted and taken up for final disposal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners applied for permission for retrenchment of workers in accordance with the provisions of Section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application was submitted by the petitioners on 17.04.2013 wherein the petitioners had inadvertently mentioned Clause C(1) instead of Clause (6) and therefore, moved a fresh application before respondent No. 1 on 22.04.2013 after completing all the necessary requirements as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that no orders on the application submitted by the petitioners were passed by the respondents, as such, the petitioners acquired deemed permission in terms of Section 25(N)(6) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, submit that that pursuant to the acquisition of the deemed permission, the petitioners retrenched the workmen and approached each individual workers with a request to receive the retrenchment compensation. Since the workmen did not come forward to receive the retrenchment compensation, the petitioners deposited the cheques of retrenchment compensation in the name of individual workers with respondent No.3. It is submitted by the petitioners that deemed permission acquired by them by operation of law was duly acted upon by them and the operations of the industries were wound up and retrenchment compensation payable to the workers was duly deposited with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Samba. After the deemed permission for retrenchment had been acted upon, respondent No.1, on the representation made by the representatives of the workers of the petitioners-industries, reconsidered the whole matter and reviewed the deemed permission acquired by the petitioners vide Govt. order No.73 L&E of 2013 dated 04.07.2013. It is this order, which the petitioners have called in question through the medium of this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the aforesaid order is not sustainable in law as the same has been issued in breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioners. It is this order, which the petitioners have called in question through the medium of this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the aforesaid order is not sustainable in law as the same has been issued in breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the deemed permission for retrenchment of workers, the petitioners have already acted to their detriment and had wound up their operations and even deposited cheques of retrenchment compensation in the names of individual workers before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and therefore, the deemed permission could not have been reviewed without even affording them an opportunity of being heard. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in terms of Section 25(N) (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government or specified authority is empowered either on its own or on the application made by the employer or any workmen to review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under Sub-Section 6 of Section 25(N), as the case may be or refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. They, therefore, submit that respondent No.1 in exercise of aforesaid power and after hearing the representation of workmen reviewed the order, which cannot be found fault with. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that Section 25(N)(6) does not specifically provide for affording opportunity of being heard to the employer before reviewing the permission or deemed permission for retrenchment granted or acquired earlier. That being so the order impugned cannot be found fault with. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as also the provision of Section 25(N)(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. It is true that Section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide expressly for providing any opportunity of being heard to the employer before exercising the power of review with respect to the order granting or refusing to grant permission yet in the scheme of things such requirement is inherent. 6. It is true that Section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide expressly for providing any opportunity of being heard to the employer before exercising the power of review with respect to the order granting or refusing to grant permission yet in the scheme of things such requirement is inherent. Admittedly, pursuant to deemed permission for retrenchment, the petitioner-Industry had acted to its detriment, not only as claimed by the petitioners they had wound up their operations but had also deposited retrenchment compensation of each individual worker with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Samba. 7. In that view of the matter, the order impugned, which necessarily entailed civil and evil consequences, could not have been passed without first complying with the principles of natural justice. It is trite that the doctrine “Audi Alteram Partem”,, which essentially enforces the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is applicable not only to a quasi judicial order but to the administrative orders also, particularly those effecting prejudicially the party claiming its breach. So all orders, whether quasi judicial or administrative, which prejudicially effect the rights of a party, are required to be passed by providing an opportunity of being heard to the party affected, unless the application of rules of natural justice has been expressly or impliedly excluded by the Act, Regulation or Rule, which, however, is not the case in hand. 8. A bare perusal of Section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act would clearly show that compliance of principles of natural justice has neither been expressly nor by implication excluded. 9. In these circumstances, keeping in view the enormous power of review given to the government, which can be exercised by it even suo motto, compliance of principles of natural justice is inherent in it. [See Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazoor Congress and others; (1991) Suppl 1 SCC 600]. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this writ petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 04.07.2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the government to pass appropriate orders in the review petition after affording full opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as to the representatives of the workers retrenched or sought to be retrenched by the petitioners. 11. Disposed of accordingly.