TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Section 25-M of Industrial Disputes Act</h1> <h3>PAPNASAM LABOUR UNION Versus MADURA COATS LTD.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding it reasonable and necessary to protect ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Comparison with Section 25-O and Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act.3. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by Section 25-M on the right to lay-off.4. Procedural and substantive reasonableness of Section 25-M.Summary:Issue 1: Constitutionality of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The appeal challenged the Division Bench of the Madras High Court's decision, which declared Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as constitutionally invalid. The High Court followed the Supreme Court's reasoning in Excel Wear v. Union of India, which invalidated Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court found that Section 25-M imposed unreasonable restrictions on the employer's right to lay-off workers without prior permission, deeming it ultra vires the Constitution.Issue 2: Comparison with Section 25-O and Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes ActThe appellant argued that the decision in Excel Wear was distinguishable and that Section 25-M had unique features, such as the requirement for recording reasons in writing and a provision for deemed permission if the authority did not respond within two months. The appellant cited Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 25-N, emphasizing that the power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment was quasi-judicial and required objective considerations.Issue 3: Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by Section 25-M on the right to lay-offThe respondent contended that the restrictions imposed by Section 25-M were excessive and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable connection to the object sought to be achieved. They argued that the provision could lead to undue hardship for employers, especially in urgent situations requiring immediate lay-off. The respondent cited cases like Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. and Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of U.P., which emphasized that restrictions must not be arbitrary or excessive.Issue 4: Procedural and substantive reasonableness of Section 25-MThe Supreme Court outlined principles for assessing the reasonableness of restrictions on fundamental rights, emphasizing the need for a direct and proximate nexus between the restriction and the object sought to be achieved. The Court found that Section 25-M's requirement for prior permission, recording of reasons, and a two-month time limit for decision-making ensured procedural reasonableness. The Court also noted that the restriction served the larger public interest by maintaining industrial peace and preventing unjustified lay-offs.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the distinguishing features of Section 25-M and Section 25-N made them different from Section 25-O. The Court found that the reasons for upholding Section 25-N's validity in Meenakshi Mills applied to Section 25-M. The Court emphasized that the restriction imposed by Section 25-M was necessary to protect workers' interests and maintain industrial peace. The impugned decision of the Madras High Court was set aside, and the vires of Section 25-M were upheld. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
