Alternative remedies under Section 25-N(6) are disjunctive; a reference cannot follow rejection of review

Section 25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act confers two alternative courses on the appropriate Government or specified authority: it may either review its order granting or refusing permission, or refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication. The statutory use of "or" is disjunctive, so the remedies are not cumulative and cannot be exercised sequentially unless the text clearly so permits. Accordingly, a reference for adjudication is not maintainable after rejection of a review application under Section 25-N(6), and the contrary view was held incorrect by the SC.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on rejection of a review application under Section 25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government or specified authority can still make a reference of the matter for adjudication.

Analysis: The provision confers two distinct courses: the appropriate Government or specified authority may either review its order granting or refusing permission or refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication. The use of the word "or" is disjunctive and indicates alternatives, not cumulative remedies. The statutory language is plain and unambiguous, and there is nothing in the provision to justify reading "or" as "and" so as to permit a reference after the review power has been exercised and rejected. The earlier decisions relied upon did not lay down that review and reference are cumulative remedies under Section 25-N(6).

Conclusion: A reference for adjudication is not maintainable after rejection of a review application under Section 25-N(6). The view of the High Court was incorrect and the appeal succeeds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers mutually alternative remedies by using the word "or", the Court must give effect to that disjunctive choice and cannot read the provision as permitting both remedies sequentially unless the legislative text clearly so provides.

---