Industrial dispute reference and retrenchment law: prior refusal does not bar later reference, and closure fails without a separate undertaking.

A prior refusal by the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute does not bar a later reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the power continues so long as the dispute exists or is apprehended. A reference is not incompetent merely because it uses wording different from the union's original demand, where the substance of the dispute remains the same. Termination will be retrenchment, not closure under Section 25FFF, unless a true independent undertaking is closed; where the notice itself describes retrenchment and no separate closure is shown, Section 25F applies and its conditions must be satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appropriate Government could make a reference of the same industrial dispute after having earlier declined to refer it. (ii) Whether the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal was incompetent because it differed from the demand originally raised by the Union. (iii) Whether the termination of the workmen's services was a retrenchment attracting Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or a closure governed by Section 25FFF of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the appropriate Government could make a reference of the same industrial dispute after having earlier declined to refer it.

Analysis: The power under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is an administrative power exercisable whenever an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. A prior refusal to make a reference does not exhaust that power or make the Government functus officio. The continued existence of the dispute and the interest of industrial peace are sufficient for reconsideration and a later reference.

Conclusion: The later reference was valid and the Government was competent to make it.

Issue (ii): Whether the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal was incompetent because it differed from the demand originally raised by the Union.

Analysis: The demand raised by the Union complained of illegal termination of service and sought reinstatement with back wages. The subsequent reference concerned the validity of the retrenchment of the same two workmen and the relief due to them. Retrenchment is a form of termination of service, and the substance of the dispute remained the same despite variation in wording.

Conclusion: The reference was not incompetent on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the termination of the workmen's services was a retrenchment attracting Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or a closure governed by Section 25FFF of that Act.

Analysis: Section 25F makes notice and retrenchment compensation conditions precedent to valid retrenchment. Section 25FFF applies where an undertaking is closed down. On the facts, the notice itself described the workmen as retrenched, the painting activity was only a part of the manufacturing process and not a separate undertaking, and no true closure of an independent undertaking was established. The case therefore fell within retrenchment rather than closure.

Conclusion: Section 25F applied, the statutory conditions were not complied with, and the termination was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order directing reinstatement with full back wages stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior refusal by the Government to refer an industrial dispute does not bar a later reference if the dispute still exists or is apprehended, and termination of a workman's service is retrenchment rather than closure unless an independent and separate undertaking itself is closed.

---