K. Ramamurthy Dr. Sankar Ghose, R.K. Garg, G.B. Pai, S. Nariman, Hardev Singh, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, C. Ramamurthy, M.A. Chinaswamy, H. Subramaniam, C.S. Vaidyanathan, T.Raju, Mrs. Smitha Singh, J. Ramamurthy, R. Vaigai, P.P. Singh, M.P. Jha, Jitendra Sharmra, R.S. Hegde, R. Nagaraja, R. Mohan, Krishan Kumar, Ms. Poonam Madan, Ashok Kumar Gupta, V.D. Mehta, R.F. Nariman, R. Narain, Ashok Sagar, D.N. Mishra, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, V. Krishnamurthy, Vimal Dave, W.C. Chopra, H.K. Puri, and Rajeshwar Rao for the appearing parties.
The validity of the said provision is assailed on the ground that it is violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19 1 g of the Constitution and is number saved by Clause 6 of Article 19.
Since the only question required to be companysidered by us is with regard to the validity of section 25 N of the Act and it can be decided on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Act without going into the facts of each case, we do number companysider it necessary to set out the facts.
Section 25 N forms part of Chapter V B which bears the heading Special provisions relating to lay off, retrenchment and closure in certain estabilshments.
The said Chapter companysists of Sections 25 K to 25 S and was inserted by the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1976 Act No.32 of 1976 , hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act, with effect from March 5, 1976.
Section 25 K, as originally enacted, companyfined the applicability of the provisions of Chapter V B to industrial establishments in which number less than 300 workmen were employed on an average working day for the preceding twelve months.
Section 25 M makes provision for prohibition of lay off.
Section 25 N prescribes the companyditions precedent to retrenchment of workment.
Section 25 O prescribes the procedure for closing down an undertaking.
Sections 25 P companytains special provision as to restarting of undertakings closed down before companymencement of the 1976 Act.
Section 25 Q imposes the penalty on the employee for companytravention of the provisions of Section 25 M or Section 25 N. Section 25 R prescribes the penalty for closure of an undertaking without companyplying with the provisions of sub section 1 of Section 25 O. Section 25 S makes the provisions of Sections 25 B, 25 D, 25 FF, 25 G, 25 H and 25 J in Chapter V A applicable to industrial establishments to which the provisions of Chapter V B apply.
The validity of Section 25 N was challenged before the various High Courts and there is a companyflict of opinion amongst the High Courts.
A division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. T. Gattiah Ors.,
Rajendran Dy.
Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and others, 1980 2 LLJ 275, has taken a companytrary view and has held Section 25 N to be violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19 1 g of the Constitution imposing unreasonable restrictions on the said right of the employer.
D.B. Writ Appeal 16 of 1981, decided on December 4, 1981 has upheld the validity of Section 25 N, while a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in K.v.
A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, by majority G.M. Lodha and G.K. Sharma, JJ.,
4 of 1984 is directed against the said judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.1982 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
194 of 1983 etc.etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
489 of 1978.
