HIND SYNTEX LTD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the writ.

(2.) In substance, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated December 27, 2003 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Commissioner whereby the application made by the petitioner under Section 25M of the Industrial Disputes Act praying permission to effect lay off in their unit was rejected. It is not in dispute that consequent upon the rejection, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 25M(7) ibid and has accordingly, applied to Commissioner on January 2, 2004 (Annexure-P-4) for making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute.

(3.) In a case of this nature where the Act provides for a remedy to seek adjudication of the issue relating to legality and validity of the lay off by means of reference by the Industrial Tribunal and the same having been taken recourse of by the petitioner then in my considered view no writ can be entertained to investigate the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner. Even otherwise, such investigation involves mixed question of law and fact and it is for this reason, the legislature in its wisdom has provided for its adjudication by means of reference. In a case of reference, the Tribunal is empowered to go into factual issue alongwith the legal one. The legislature has also provided a time limit to decide the reference once made to Tribunal.