1 also prayed that the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Madras should be restrained from enforcing the provisions of the said Industrial Dispute Amendment Act in respect of the lay off application being application No.
The petitioner also prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, for quashing order dated 11th September 1976 by which the said lay off application was rejected by the Joint Labour Commissioner.
The said writ petition was moved by the respondent No.
1119 of 1977, a number of similar writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 25 M of the Industrial Disputes Act and companysequential prosecutional penalty for the lay off in companytravention of Section 25 M were heard by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and by one companymon judgment, all the said writ petitions were disposed of.
Along with the said Writ Petition No.
The writ petitioner respondent No.
4 of 1976 made by the petitioner.
1 Madura Coats Ltd., for a declaration that Section 25 M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it stood un der the Industrial Dispute Amendment Act, 1976 in so far as it required prior permission to be obtained to effect lay off is ultra vires and void.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court inter alia held that Section 25 M as it stood under the said amendment Act, 1976 was companystitutionally invalid for the reasons given by this Court in invalidating Section 25 O of the Industrial Disputes Act in the decision rendered in Excel Wear Etc versus Union of India and Others 1979 1 SCR 1009 .
1119 of 1977.
N. RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th April, 1981 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.
