{"id":117801,"date":"1996-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996"},"modified":"2015-09-24T00:34:20","modified_gmt":"2015-09-23T19:04:20","slug":"vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996","title":{"rendered":"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1282, \t\t  1996 SCC  (2) 118<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, G.N. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVAZIR GLASS WORKS LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/01\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1282\t\t  1996 SCC  (2) 118\n JT 1996 (1)   129\t  1996 SCALE  (1)181\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nG.N.Ray.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  is directed  against\tthe  judgment  dated<br \/>\nAugust 9,  1994 passed\tby the Division Bench of Bombay High<br \/>\nCourt in  Appeal No.460\t of 1994  reversing the\t order dated<br \/>\nJune 22,  1994 passed  by the Single Bench of the High Court<br \/>\nin Writ Petition No.1446 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By the  impugned order,  reference\t to  the  Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal under\tSection 25  (O) (5) read with Section 10 (1)<br \/>\nof the\tIndustrial Disputes  Act  made\tby  the\t Industries.<br \/>\nEnergy and  Labour Department. Government of Maharashtra, on<br \/>\nApril 7, 1994 was sat aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It appears\t that the  appellant, a Company incorporated<br \/>\nunder the  Indian Companies  Act had  an  Unit\tat  Andheri,<br \/>\nBombay. According  to the  Company, the\t said unit  became a<br \/>\nheavily losing\tbusiness  venture  for\treasons\t beyond\t the<br \/>\ncontrol of  the Company\t and the said unit started incurring<br \/>\nlosses from  the veer 1991-92. The loss suffered by the said<br \/>\nunit was  to the  tune of Rs.29.20 lakhs. The factory of the<br \/>\nappellant-Company at  Andheri was  closed since\t November 3,<br \/>\n1992 and  since thereafter,  no manufacturing  activity\t has<br \/>\nbeen carried on in the said unit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  the case of the Company that it had employed 774<br \/>\nworkmen originally  in the said unit and after the said unit<br \/>\nbecame a  losing  concern,  in\torder  to  rehabilitate\t the<br \/>\nworkmen of  the said  unit,  the  Company  offered  generous<br \/>\nVoluntary Retirement  Schemes  from  time  to  time  to\t its<br \/>\nworkmen\t despite   the\tCompany&#8217;s  financial  hardship.\t The<br \/>\nVoluntary Retirement  Scheme was accepted by the majority of<br \/>\nthe workmen  and out of 774 originally employed, 454 workmen<br \/>\nhad accepted the said scheme requiring payment to be made to<br \/>\nthe tune  of Rs.560 lakhs. As 320 workmen did not accept the<br \/>\nsaid Voluntary\tRetirement Scheme, the appellant-Company was<br \/>\nconstrained to\tseek  closure  of  its\tindustrial  unit  at<br \/>\nAndheri because\t the monthly  wage  bill  of  the  remaining<br \/>\nworkmen would  be Rs.12\t lakhs and  the other  establishment<br \/>\nexpenses being another 12 lakhs per month, the total cost to<br \/>\nbe incurred  by the Company for the said unit would be about<br \/>\n3 crores per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Company,  therefore, made  an application on August<br \/>\n14, 1992  for closure  of the  said unit  at  Andheri  under<br \/>\nSection\t 25   (O)  (1)\t of  the   Industrial  Disputes\t Act<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as Act). Such application, however,<br \/>\nwas rejected  by the  State Government\ton October 12, 1992.<br \/>\nThe Company thereafter made an application for review of the<br \/>\nsaid order  on February 23, 1993 under Section 25 (O) (5) of<br \/>\nthe Act\t which was  well within\t one year  of the  order  of<br \/>\nrejection.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The said  review application  was kept  pending by\t the<br \/>\nState Government  and in exercise of its powers conferred by<br \/>\nSection 25  (O) (5)  read with\tSection 10(1)  of  the\tAct,<br \/>\ninstead of  reviewing the  order of  rejection dated October<br \/>\n12, 1992  the State  Government\t made  a  reference  to\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal  for adjudication of the case of closure<br \/>\nmade by\t the Company.  Such reference  was made after notice<br \/>\nand opportunity of being heard given to the respondent No.1,<br \/>\nnamely, the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Union\tthereafter moved  a writ petition before the<br \/>\nBombay High  Court representing the interest of the said 320<br \/>\nworkmen, challenging  the legality and validity of the order<br \/>\nof reference  made by  the State  Government  under  Section<br \/>\n25(O)(5) read  with Section  10(1) of the Act. The said writ<br \/>\nPetition No.  1446 of  1994 was rejected by the Single Bench<br \/>\nof the\tHigh Court  by the  order dated 22nd June, 1994. The<br \/>\nUnion thereafter  preferred an\tappeal before  the  Division<br \/>\nBench of  the Bombay  High Court being writ Appeal No.460 of<br \/>\n1994 assailing\tthe judgment  passed by\t the learned  Single<br \/>\nBench. By  the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed<br \/>\nthe said  appeal and  set aside\t the judgment  passed by the<br \/>\nlearned Single\tBench in the said writ petition. It has been<br \/>\nheld by\t the Division Bench that: (1) in terms of Section 25<br \/>\n(O) (4)\t of the Act, the order passed on the application for<br \/>\nclosure remains operative for one year from the date of such<br \/>\norder and  after expiry\t of such period, the power of review<br \/>\nof the\torder automatically  comes to  an end. (2) It is not<br \/>\ncorrect to  contend that  until the review application filed<br \/>\nby the\tcompany is not finally disposed of, the order passed<br \/>\nunder Section  25 (O)(2)  by the  State Government  does not<br \/>\nbecome final  (3) The  State Government\t is not empowered to<br \/>\npass order  under Section  25 (O) (5) at any time during the<br \/>\npendency of  review application even if one veer had elapsed<br \/>\nfrom the date of the order passed under Section 25(O)(2). As<br \/>\nadmittedly the\treview application was disposed of by making<br \/>\nthe said  reference under  Section 25(O)(5)  of the  Act, by<br \/>\npurporting to dispose of the review application after expiry<br \/>\nof one\tyear from  the\tdate  of  the  order  rejecting\t the<br \/>\napplication for permission to close, such order of reference<br \/>\nto the\tIndustrial Tribunal  was invalid, having been passed<br \/>\nwithout any jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  Company   has\t challenged   in  this\t appeal\t the<br \/>\ncorrectness of\tsuch decision  of the  Bombay High  Court in<br \/>\nquashing  the\tsaid  reference\t  made\tby   the  State\t  of<br \/>\nMaharashtra. It\t will be  appropriate to  refer\t to  Section<br \/>\n25(O) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n<p>     SECTION 25(O)<br \/>\n     (1)  An  employer\twho  intends  to<br \/>\n     close down\t an  undertaking  of  an<br \/>\n     industrial establishment  to  which<br \/>\n     this Chapter  applies shall, in the<br \/>\n     prescribed manner\tapply, for prior<br \/>\n     permission\t at  least  ninety  days<br \/>\n     before  the   date\t on   which  the<br \/>\n     intended  closure\t is  to\t  become<br \/>\n     effective,\t  to   the   appropriate<br \/>\n     Government\t stating   clearly   the<br \/>\n     reasons for the intended closure of<br \/>\n     the undertaking  and a copy of such<br \/>\n     application shall\talso  be  served<br \/>\n     simultaneously\t   on\t     the<br \/>\n     representative of\tthe  workmen  in<br \/>\n     the prescribed manner:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Provided that  nothing in this sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>     section   shall\tapply\tto    an<br \/>\n     undertaking   set\t  up   for   the<br \/>\n     construction of buildings, bridges,<br \/>\n     roads, canals,  dams or  for  other<br \/>\n     construction work.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2)  Where\t  an   application   for<br \/>\n     permission has been made under Sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>     section   (1)    the    appropriate<br \/>\n     Government\t  after\t   making   such<br \/>\n     enquiry as\t it thinks fit and after<br \/>\n     giving a responsible opportunity of<br \/>\n     being heard  to the  employee,  the<br \/>\n     workmen and  the persons interested<br \/>\n     in such  closure may, having regard<br \/>\n     to the  genuineness and adequacy of<br \/>\n     the reasons stated by the employer,<br \/>\n     the interests of the general public<br \/>\n     and all  other relevant factors, by<br \/>\n     order  and\t  for  reasons\t to   be<br \/>\n     recorded  in   writing,  grant   of<br \/>\n     refuse to grant such permission and<br \/>\n     a\tcopy  of  such\torder  shall  be<br \/>\n     communicated to  the  employer  and<br \/>\n     the workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (3)  Where an  application has been<br \/>\n     made under\t sub-section (1) and the<br \/>\n     appropriate  Government   does  not<br \/>\n     communicate the  order granting  or<br \/>\n     refusing to grant permission to the<br \/>\n     employer within  a period\tof sixty<br \/>\n     days from\tthe date  on which  such<br \/>\n     application is made, the permission<br \/>\n     applied for shall be deemed to have<br \/>\n     been granted  on the  expiration of<br \/>\n     the said period of sixty days.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (4)  An order  of\tthe  appropriate<br \/>\n     Government granting  or refusing to<br \/>\n     grant permission  shall subject  to<br \/>\n     the provisions  of sub-section  (5)<br \/>\n     be final  and binding  on\tall  the<br \/>\n     parties and  shall remain\tin force<br \/>\n     for one  year from the date of such<br \/>\n     order.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (5)  The\tappropriate   Government<br \/>\n     may, either on its own motion or on<br \/>\n     the   application\t made\tby   the<br \/>\n     employer or any workman, review its<br \/>\n     order granting or refusing to grant<br \/>\n     permission under Sub-Section (2) or<br \/>\n     refer the\tmatter to a tribunal for<br \/>\n     adjudication:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Provided that where a reference has<br \/>\n     been made\tto a Tribunal under this<br \/>\n     sub-section, it shall pass an award<br \/>\n     within a period of thirty days from<br \/>\n     the date of such reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (6)  Where\t  no   application   for<br \/>\n     permission under Sub-section (1) is<br \/>\n     made within  the  period  specified<br \/>\n     therein, or  where\t the  permission<br \/>\n     for closure  has been  refused, the<br \/>\n     closure of the undertaking shall be<br \/>\n     deemed to\tbe illegal from the date<br \/>\n     of closure and the workmen shall be<br \/>\n     entitled to  all the benefits under<br \/>\n     any law for the time being in force<br \/>\n     as if  the undertaking had not been<br \/>\n     closed down.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (7)  Notwithstanding\tanything<br \/>\n     contained\t  in\tthe    foregoing<br \/>\n     provisions\t of  this  section,  the<br \/>\n     appropriate Government  may, if  it<br \/>\n     is satisfied  that\t owing\tto  such<br \/>\n     exceptional    circumstances     as<br \/>\n     accident  in   the\t undertaking  or<br \/>\n     death of  the employer or the like,<br \/>\n     it is  necessary so to go, by order<br \/>\n     direct that  the provisions of sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>     section  (1)  shall  not  apply  in<br \/>\n     relation to  such\tundertaking  for<br \/>\n     such period  as may be specified in<br \/>\n     the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (8)  Where\t  an\tundertaking   is<br \/>\n     permitted to  be closed  down under<br \/>\n     Sub-section (2) or where permission<br \/>\n     for closure is deemed to be granted<br \/>\n     under   Sub-Section    (3),   every<br \/>\n     workman who  is  employed\tin  that<br \/>\n     under taking immediately before the<br \/>\n     date of  application for permission<br \/>\n     under   this   action,   shall   be<br \/>\n     entitled  to  receive  compensation<br \/>\n     which  shall   be\t equivalent   to<br \/>\n     fifteen days  average pay for every<br \/>\n     completed\t year\t of   continuous<br \/>\n     service  or  any  part  thereof  in<br \/>\n     excess of six months.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bobde\tlearned senior\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant-Company has  submitted that  the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe High Court has held that it is not the date of filing of<br \/>\napplication  but   the\tdate  of  the  order  rejecting\t the<br \/>\napplication for\t permission for\t closure which must be taken<br \/>\ninto consideration  to examine whether the authority passing<br \/>\nthe order  on review  application under Section 25(O)(5) had<br \/>\njurisdiction to\t pass an order. Mr. Bobde has submitted that<br \/>\nthe Division  Bench has\t erroneously held that once a period<br \/>\nof one\tyear expires from the date of the order passed under<br \/>\nSection\t 25(O)(2)   of\tthe   Act  on  the  application\t for<br \/>\npermission to  close an industrial undertaking, the power of<br \/>\nreview comes  to  end  notwithstanding\tpresentation  of  an<br \/>\napplication for\t review within\tthe said  period of one year<br \/>\nand pendency  of such  review application  before the  State<br \/>\nGovernment. Mr.\t Bobde has  contended in  terms\t of  Section<br \/>\n25(O)(4) of  the Act, the order passed under 25(O)(2) of the<br \/>\nAct rejecting  the application for permission to close, does<br \/>\nnot attain  finality and  the review  application  does\t not<br \/>\nbecome infructuous after expiry of one year from the date of<br \/>\norder under  Section 25(O)(2)  of the  Act. On the contrary,<br \/>\nthe one\t year period  for c the finality of the order passed<br \/>\nunder Section  25(O)(2) of  the Act  gets enlarged  till the<br \/>\norder is  made on  the review application. The period of one<br \/>\nyear as referred to in Section 25(O)(4) is subject to review<br \/>\nto be made under Section 25(O)(5) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bobde\thas submitted  that for\t giving\t appropriate<br \/>\nmeaning to  sub-section (4)  and sub-section  (5) of Section<br \/>\n25(O) of  the Act,  it should  be held that the order passed<br \/>\nunder sub-section  (2) remains\tvalid and  operative for one<br \/>\nyear from  the date  of such  order under sub-section (2) if<br \/>\nwithin the  said period\t of one\t year,\tno  application\t for<br \/>\nreview of  the order  has been made. But if such application<br \/>\nis made\t within the  aforesaid time  frame, the\t order under<br \/>\nSection\t 25(O)(2)  does\t not  attain  finality\tbut  remains<br \/>\noperative subject to order by way of review. Since the order<br \/>\nunder sub-section  (2) does  not attain\t finality during the<br \/>\npendency of  review application,  the State  Government does<br \/>\nnot cease to have jurisdiction to entertain and consider the<br \/>\nreview application  on merits.\tAny construction  of Section<br \/>\n25(O)(4) and  25(O)(5) of  the Act putting an embargo on the<br \/>\nexercise of  jurisdiction of  the State Government to review<br \/>\nits order  on an application presented by an aggrieved party<br \/>\nwithin one  year of  the order made under Sub-section (2) of<br \/>\nthe Act\t will violate  the very\t purpose of review and would<br \/>\nmake a\treview application  abortive  and  infructuous\teven<br \/>\nthough a  statutory authority  had failed  and neglected  to<br \/>\nconsider the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bobde\thas submitted  that  in\t the  instant  case,<br \/>\nadmittedly the\tCompany\t presented  the\t review\t application<br \/>\nbefore the  expiry of one year from the date of rejection of<br \/>\nthe Company&#8217;s  application for permission to close its unit.<br \/>\nAfter one  year, the  Company was  entitled to\tmake a fresh<br \/>\napplication for\t such permission  to close despite rejection<br \/>\nor its\tapplication earlier.  But  if  the  application\t for<br \/>\nreview has  been made  within the  time frame,\tneither\t the<br \/>\nState Government is deprived of its jurisdiction to consider<br \/>\nthe review  application on merit nor the Company is deprived<br \/>\nof its\tright to  get such  review application considered on<br \/>\nmerit by  the State Government and on such application being<br \/>\npresented, the\tState Government  has jurisdiction  to\tpass<br \/>\norder by itself or to make reference for adjudication by the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bobde\thas also  submitted that the case of closure<br \/>\nof an  industrial unit\tis required  to be considered by the<br \/>\nconcerned  authority   by  taking   into  consideration\t all<br \/>\nrelevant factors  because such\tdecision  has  not  only  an<br \/>\nimpact on  the workmen\temployed in the concerned industrial<br \/>\nunit but  it has  also an  impact on the productivity of the<br \/>\nIndustry and  economy of  the country.\tIn the instant case,<br \/>\nthe Company  made an application for review before the State<br \/>\nGovernment by  drawing its  attention to  the relevant facts<br \/>\nwhich according\t to the\t Company warrant  sanction  for\t the<br \/>\nclosure. It  is not  unlikely that  the State  Government in<br \/>\nview  of  other\t urgent\t and  pressing\tproblems  could\t not<br \/>\nconsider the application of the Company before expiry of one<br \/>\nyear from  the date  of rejection  of  the  application\t for<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure. It  appears  that  after  the\tsaid<br \/>\napplication for\t review was  taken up for consideration, the<br \/>\nState Government  being\t alive\tto  serious  implication  of<br \/>\nclosure of  an industrial  undertaking, thought it expedient<br \/>\nthat such  question should  be gone  into by  the Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal in  a more effective manner. If on such perception,<br \/>\nthe State  Government has  made reference  which is  neither<br \/>\nlacking in jurisdiction hor wholly unreasonable or perverse,<br \/>\nthere is  no question  of quashing such reference. Mr. Bobde<br \/>\nhas  submitted\t that  instead\tof  decision  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment an adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is all<br \/>\nthe more desirable in the interest of both the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Bobde has  also submitted that the view taken by the<br \/>\nHigh Court  in the  impugned decision that it is the date of<br \/>\nfiling the  application and not the date of the order passed<br \/>\nunder sub section (2) of Section 25 (O) of the Act, which is<br \/>\nto be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction<br \/>\nof  the\t State\tGovernment  to\tpass  order  on\t the  review<br \/>\napplication under Section 25 (5) of the Act, is not correct.<br \/>\nThe State  Government did  not cease  to  have\tjurisdiction<br \/>\nsimply with  the expiry\t of one\t year from the date of order<br \/>\nrejecting application  for permission  to close.  It retains<br \/>\nits jurisdiction  to review  and does  not become  functions<br \/>\nofficio if  within a year, an application for review is made<br \/>\nand such  application remains  pending. In  support of\tsuch<br \/>\ncontention, Mr.Bobde  has relied  on the  decision  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  in   Grindlays  Bank   Ltd.  Vs.\t Central  Government<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal  and others (1980 Supp. SCC 420). It has<br \/>\nbeen held  in the  said decision  that\tan  application\t for<br \/>\nsetting aside  its ex  parte award  made within\t thirty days<br \/>\nfrom  the   date  of   passing\tthe  award  can\t be  validly<br \/>\nentertained  by\t  the  Tribunal.  The  contention  that\t the<br \/>\nTribunal had  become functions officio and as such lacked in<br \/>\njurisdiction to\t entertain review application was negatived.<br \/>\nIt has been held that jurisdiction of the Tribunal had to be<br \/>\nseen on\t the date  of the  application made to it and not on<br \/>\nthe  date  on  which  it  passed  the  order.  Mr.Bobde\t has<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t the  view  taken  by  the  High  Court\t is,<br \/>\ntherefore, erroneous, being contrary to the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Bobde has  also referred to another decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in  Western Indian  Match Co. Vs. Western Indian Match<br \/>\nCo.  Workers  Union  and  others  (1970\t (3)  SCR  370)\t for<br \/>\ncontending  that  power\t to  refer  to\tIndustrial  Tribunal<br \/>\nremains\t unaffected   even  if\t on  an\t  earlier  occasion,<br \/>\nGovernment refused  to made  reference. If  a valid  dispute<br \/>\nstill remains  and on  consideration of\t relevant facts, the<br \/>\nGovernment feels  that a  case for  reference has  been made<br \/>\nout, it\t can direct  for reference.  Mr. Bobde has submitted<br \/>\nthat on\t the date of passing order of reference the case for<br \/>\nclosure espoused  by the  Company had  continued and despite<br \/>\nearlier rejection  for permission  to  close  an  industrial<br \/>\nunit, the  State Government  was quite\tcompetent to make an<br \/>\norder of reference to the Industrial Tribunal by considering<br \/>\nrelevant factors.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Bobde has  also submitted  that power  of the  State<br \/>\nGovernment to reconsider the case for closure is not limited<br \/>\nby any\tprecondition. What  is contemplated under Section 25<br \/>\n(O)(5) of the Act is not a limited review within the meaning<br \/>\nof Order  XVII Rule  1 of  Civil  Procedure  Code.  What  is<br \/>\nintended is a reconsideration of the entire matter including<br \/>\nthe facts  and law  omitted while passing the first order as<br \/>\nwell as\t new development  that took place after the original<br \/>\norder was  passed. The object for the provision of review is<br \/>\nto do justice between the parties by considering whether the<br \/>\noriginal decision  is correct  or not.\tIn support  of\tsuch<br \/>\ncontention, a  decision of  the Kerala\tHigh Court  in Laxmi<br \/>\nStarch Limited\tVs. The\t Kunda Factory\tWorkers Union  (1992<br \/>\nLabour and  Industries Cases  1337) has\t been relied  on  by<br \/>\nMr.Bobde.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Bobde  has   further  submitted\t  that\t the   State<br \/>\nGovernment had jurisdiction to consider the case for closure<br \/>\nof the\tindustrial unit\t by entertaining the application for<br \/>\nreview on  merits and  the State  Government did  not become<br \/>\nfunctions  officio  in\tentertaining  such  application\t for<br \/>\nreview because\tthe power to review is referable to the date<br \/>\nof making  the application  and not  the date  on which\t the<br \/>\norder or  such review  application is  made. In\t the instant<br \/>\ncase, considering  the possible\t impact on the employees and<br \/>\neconomy as  a  whole  if  closure  is  effected,  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment thought  it\texpedient  that\t such  consideration<br \/>\nshould be  made\t by  Industrial\t Tribunal.  Such  reference,<br \/>\ntherefore, should not be held invalid. He has also submitted<br \/>\nthat hearing  before the  Tribunal was\tcompleted  and\tthis<br \/>\nCourt by  an interim order directed the Tribunal to pass its<br \/>\naward and  send the  same in  a sealed cover. Such award has<br \/>\nsince been  sent in  a sealed  cover by the Tribunal to this<br \/>\nCourt. As the reference is legal and valid, the Court should<br \/>\naccept the  said award\tand direct for giving effect to such<br \/>\naward by  treating it  as valid\t award made  on a  reference<br \/>\nunder Section 25 (O)(5) read with Section 10 (1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Deshmukh,  learned Senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent-Union has,  however, refuted\t the contentions  of<br \/>\nMr.Bobde. It  has been\tcontended by  Mr. Deshmukh  that the<br \/>\nCompany is  closely held  public United Company &#8211; its shares<br \/>\nbeing held  by family  members. The Company made substantial<br \/>\nprofit in  1991-92 and\treserve share of the Company was 489<br \/>\nlakhs against paid up share capital of 65 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was  only when\tthe same  family had  set up  a\t new<br \/>\nCompany called\tNeutral Glass  and Allied Industries Limited<br \/>\nat Kosama  in Surat mainly to avail various benefits and tax<br \/>\nevations for  establishing industry  in backward  area,\t the<br \/>\nCompany had  been  neglected  purposefully.  The  commercial<br \/>\nproduction of  that new\t venture hear Surat started in 1989-\n<\/p>\n<p>90. Immediately,  production in the Company was cut down and<br \/>\nproduction by  the  new\t venture  was  increased.  Even\t the<br \/>\nofficials of  the Company had written to its clients in 1989<br \/>\nthat all  future orders\t should be  placed with the said new<br \/>\nventure and  not with the Company. As a matter of fact, many<br \/>\nofficials of the Company had worked both for the Company and<br \/>\nalso  for   new\t venture   and\tdocumentary  proof  of\tsuch<br \/>\ndetrimental steps  had been  submitted before the Industrial<br \/>\nCourt in  Reference No. (IT) 25 of 1994. Hence, the bogey of<br \/>\nclosing\t down\ta  sick\t and  losing  concern  is  factually<br \/>\nincorrect and should not be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh  has\tfurther\t submitted   that  the\tmain<br \/>\nquestion that  requires for  consideration is whether or not<br \/>\non the\tdate when reference to Industrial Tribunal was made,<br \/>\nthe State  Government  had  jurisdiction  to  entertain\t the<br \/>\nReview Application and pass order on the same. The merits of<br \/>\nthe application\t for closure  of the  said unit\t at Andheri,<br \/>\nhowever, are  not germane  for deciding\t the correctness and<br \/>\nvalidity of  the impugned  judgment of the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe Bombay High Court. Mr.Deshmukh has submitted that having<br \/>\nregard to  various provisions  of Section  25 (O) of the Act<br \/>\nand particularly  having regard\t to the\t stipulation in sub-<br \/>\nSection (3)  of Section\t 25 (O)\t that the  permission sought<br \/>\nshall be  deemed to  have been\tgranted if  the order on the<br \/>\napplication  for  permission  is  not  communicated  to\t the<br \/>\nemployer within sixty days of the making of the application,<br \/>\nit is  quite evident  that the\tintention of the legislature<br \/>\nthat the time should play a dominant role in the proceedings<br \/>\nfor closure  of an industrial unit, is abundantly clear. For<br \/>\nany  interpretation   of  true\timport\tof  Section  25\t (O)<br \/>\nconsisting of  various sub-Sections,  the importance of time<br \/>\nfactor should not be missed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh has contended that closure of an industrial<br \/>\nundertaking is\tbound to  have serious\trepercussions on the<br \/>\nemployer; workmen  and persons\tconnected with\tthe industry<br \/>\nand also  on the  general public.  Further,  factors  having<br \/>\nbearing on  the decision  to close  are numerous and many of<br \/>\nsuch factors  change with  the passing of time. Hence, it is<br \/>\nnecessary  that\t  factors  relevant   for  closure  must  be<br \/>\nconsidered within  a time  frame so that with the passage of<br \/>\ntime,  such   consideration  may  not  lose  its  relevance.<br \/>\nPrecisely for  the said\t reason, legislature  in its wisdom,<br \/>\nhas fixed  one year  as the  outer limit  within  which\t the<br \/>\nfactors placed\tby an  employer for permission to close, may<br \/>\nbe reviewed by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh has submitted that if a review application,<br \/>\nthough made  within the said time frame of one year from the<br \/>\npate of\t rejecting the\temployer&#8217;s application\tfor grant of<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure,  is  not  considered  for  whatever<br \/>\nreason, the  employer does not in reality suffer any serious<br \/>\nprejudice, Because,  the  order\t rejecting  the\t prayer\t for<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure remains\t in force,  subject  to\t any<br \/>\nreview to  be made within that time frame. An employer after<br \/>\none year  can make  same prayer\t for permission to close not<br \/>\nonly on\t the materials\twhich he  had placed  earlier but on<br \/>\nother or  further materials  which  may\t crop  up  with\t the<br \/>\npassage of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh  has\tsubmitted  that\t  the  decision\t  in<br \/>\nGrindlays Bank&#8217;s  case (supra)\tsince relied on by Mr.Bobde,<br \/>\nthe  learned  counsel  for  the\t appellant  Company  has  no<br \/>\napplication in\tthe facts  of the  case. In Grindlays Bank&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase, this  Court has  made distinction\t between  review  on<br \/>\nprocedural lapse  and review  on merits\t of the\t case. After<br \/>\nindicating that\t the ex\t parte order  made in  that case was<br \/>\nmanifestly unjust, it has been indicated that every court or<br \/>\ntribunal has inherent jurisdiction to review its order which<br \/>\nhas resulted in miscarriage of justice in procedural matter.<br \/>\nSuch exercise  of review  to correct procedural irregularity<br \/>\nis based  on the  principle that  court has a duty to remedy<br \/>\nthe errors  committed by it in following the procedures in a<br \/>\nits. In\t the  instant  case,  the  State  Government  having<br \/>\napplied its  mind on  the  application\tfor  permission\t for<br \/>\nclosure, held  that such  permission was  not justified\t and<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed  the application. The State Government<br \/>\nhad not\t committed any error in adopting any procedure which<br \/>\nhas broughts  about miscarriage\t of justice.  The Company by<br \/>\nfiling review  application has sought for reconsideration of<br \/>\nthe application.  Such review  application, for\t the reasons<br \/>\nalready indicated,  must be considered within the time frame<br \/>\nof one year.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh has  submitted that  the  finality  of\t the<br \/>\norder passed  under sub\t section (2)  of Section  25 (O)  is<br \/>\nundoubtedly subject  to any  order  to\tbe  made  on  review<br \/>\napplication. If an application for permission for closure is<br \/>\nrejected and  immediately or shortly thereafter the employer<br \/>\nmakes an  application for  review and within one year of the<br \/>\norder of  rejection, the  State Government  on reviewing the<br \/>\ngrounds urged in support of closure, accepts the case of the<br \/>\nemployer and grants permission within the said time frame of<br \/>\none year,  there is no manner of doubt that earlier order of<br \/>\nrejection will\tstand superseded. But it will not be correct<br \/>\nto contend  that because an order of rejection is subject to<br \/>\nany order  that may  be passed\ton review  application\tmade<br \/>\nagainst the  order of rejection, such review application may<br \/>\nbe presented  at any time even beyond the said time frame of<br \/>\none year  or if\t review application is made within such time<br \/>\nframe,\tsuch   review  application  will  remain  alive\t for<br \/>\nconsideration even  after expiry  of the  said time frame of<br \/>\none year.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh has  submitted that  the decisions  in\t M\/s<br \/>\nWestern India Match Co.&#8217;s case (supra) and in Laxmi Starch&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra) have no application in the facts of the case in<br \/>\nquestion. The  decision in the aforesaid cases do not relate<br \/>\nto the\tconsideration of  finality of  an order passed under<br \/>\nsub section (2) of Section 25 (O) of the Act after expiry of<br \/>\none year  and consequential  invalidity of  consideration by<br \/>\nway of\treview after  such period. Mr.Deshmukh has submitted<br \/>\nthat for the constitutional validity of the executive action<br \/>\ntaken under sub section (2) of Section 25 (O) without making<br \/>\nany provision  for judicial  review of such executive order,<br \/>\nthe time limit of one year within which the order made under<br \/>\nsub section (2) of sub section 25 (O) would remain operative<br \/>\ncoupled with the provision of making review application even<br \/>\nwithin such  period of\tone year  and right  to\t make  fresh<br \/>\napplication for\t permission for\t closure after one year have<br \/>\nbeen  provided\tin  Section  25\t (O).  In  support  of\tthis<br \/>\ncontention. Mr.Deshmukh\t has referred  to  the\tConstitution<br \/>\nBench Decision\tof this Court in Meenakshi Mill&#8217;s case (1992<br \/>\n(3) SCC\t 336) and Pappasan Labour Union&#8217;s case (1995 (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>501).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh has  submitted that if the specific purpose<br \/>\nof time frame of one year in Section 25 (O) is kept in mind,<br \/>\nthe requirement\t of making a review application and disposal<br \/>\nof the\tsame within  the  said\ttime  frame  will  be  quite<br \/>\nevident. Since\tfresh  application  for\t permission  may  be<br \/>\npresented after\t one year  from the  date of rejection of an<br \/>\napplication for\t permission for\t closure,  the\tquestion  of<br \/>\nkeeping alive  a review\t application even beyond one year so<br \/>\nthat a\tparty making such review application does not suffer<br \/>\nany unmerited  hardship, on  account of non consideration of<br \/>\nreview application within the time frame does not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Deshmukh has  submitted that as the State Government<br \/>\nlacked in  jurisdiction to  deal with the review application<br \/>\nafter expiry  of one  year, the\t reference made by it to the<br \/>\nIndustrial   Tribunal\tin   the   purported   exercise\t  of<br \/>\njurisdiction to\t entertain and dispose of review application<br \/>\ncannot be  held valid.\tIt will, therefore, be an irrelevant<br \/>\nconsideration that  reference to Industrial Tribunal instead<br \/>\nof State  Government itself  taking a  decision on merit, is<br \/>\nmore desirable\tin the\tinterest of the parties. Mr.Deshmukh<br \/>\nhas submitted  that in the aforesaid facts, this appeal must<br \/>\nfail and should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After giving our careful consideration to the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of  the case  and the  submissions made by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that it is<br \/>\nquite evident  from the\t Scheme of  various sub\t sections of<br \/>\nSection 25  (O) of  the Act that whenever an application for<br \/>\nclosure of  an industrial  unit is  made by an employer, the<br \/>\nState Government  before whom  such application\t is made, is<br \/>\nrequired to  dispose of\t such application  within sixty days<br \/>\nfrom the  date of making the application and communicate its<br \/>\ndecision within\t the said  period of  sixty days  so that an<br \/>\nemployer does  not suffer any hardship on account of failure<br \/>\non the\tpart of\t the State  Government to  dispose  of\tsuch<br \/>\napplication for\t permission for\t closure  expeditiously.  In<br \/>\norder to  impel the  State Government  to  dispose  of\tsuch<br \/>\napplication  expeditiously   not   exceeding   sixty   days,<br \/>\nprovision has  been made  that if  the decision of the State<br \/>\nGovernment on  the application\tfor permission\tto close  an<br \/>\nindustrial unit\t is not\t communicated within the said period<br \/>\nof sixty  days, it  will be  deemed that such permission has<br \/>\nbeen granted.  Since the  decision on  the  application\t for<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure is  to be  taken  by  the  executive<br \/>\nauthority namely the State Government and since no provision<br \/>\nfor statutory  review before  other authority has been made,<br \/>\nthe Legislature\t has incorporated the provision of review by<br \/>\nthe State  Government of its decision on the application for<br \/>\nclosure either\ton its\town motion  or on  the basis  of the<br \/>\napplication to be made by the aggrieved party.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As the  decision made  by the  State Government  on the<br \/>\nquestion of  closure of\t an industrial unit cannot but bring<br \/>\nabout serious consequence affecting productivity, employment<br \/>\nopportunities etc.,  the decision  taken on  the application<br \/>\nfor closure,  has been\tmade operative for one year only, so<br \/>\nthat after  such period,  if an\t employer still desires that<br \/>\nthe industrial\tunit should  be closed,\t it may make a fresh<br \/>\napplication for\t permission to\tclose the  said unit.  It is<br \/>\nquite obvious  that in such application not only the factors<br \/>\nwhich  were   indicated\t in   the  previous  application  in<br \/>\njustification of  closure of  the industrial  unit but other<br \/>\nfactors emerging  with the  passage of\ttime may  be  placed<br \/>\nbefore the  State Government  for  taking  decision  on\t the<br \/>\napplication for\t permission to\tclose. In order to evade any<br \/>\nunmerited hardship  meted  out\tto  an\taggrieved  party  on<br \/>\naccount of  improper or incorrect decision made by the State<br \/>\nGovernment on  the application for permission to close, even<br \/>\nduring the period of one year when the decision of the State<br \/>\nGovernment remains  operative the  review application may be<br \/>\nmade  by   the\tparty\taggrieved.  Even   apart  from\tsuch<br \/>\napplication, the State Government may also initiate sub moto<br \/>\nproceeding to  review its  decision. If the State Government<br \/>\npasses any order on such review application, such order will<br \/>\nsupersede the  initial order  made on  the  application\t for<br \/>\npermission to close.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Since  the\t  decision  made   on  an   application\t for<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure is  to remain  operative only  for a<br \/>\nyear, in  our view,  it will  be only proper to hold that an<br \/>\norder by  way of  review either\t on  the  aggrieved  party&#8217;s<br \/>\napplication or\ton own\tmotion of the State Government, must<br \/>\nbe made\t within the  said period of one year. Otherwise, the<br \/>\nright to  make fresh  application for  permission  to  close<br \/>\nafter expiry  of one  year from\t the date  of  rejection  of<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure will  lose its\trelevance.  It\talso<br \/>\nappears to  us that  anomalous situation  may arise  if\t the<br \/>\napplication for\t review, when presented within the said time<br \/>\nframe of  one year  is allowed\tto be decided even after the<br \/>\nexpiry of  the said  time frame\t of one\t year when the order<br \/>\npassed by  the State  Government has  already ceased  to  be<br \/>\noperative. As  an illustration,\t it may\t be indicated that a<br \/>\nparty aggrieved makes an application for review of the order<br \/>\nof the State Government within a year during which the order<br \/>\nis operative,  but for\tsome reason, such application is not<br \/>\ndisposed of  within one\t year. After expiry of one year, the<br \/>\naggrieved party\t makes a fresh application for permission to<br \/>\nclose and  on such application an order is made by the State<br \/>\nGovernment or  the party  obtains a deemed order. This order<br \/>\non a  fresh application,  subject to any review of the same,<br \/>\nwill remain  in force  for one year. If the State Government<br \/>\nis permitted  to pass  order on\t the review application made<br \/>\nagainst the  first  order  when\t the  right  to\t make  fresh<br \/>\napplication and\t to obtain an order has already accrued, any<br \/>\norder on  review to be enforceable must conform to the order<br \/>\npassed\tor   deemed  to\t  have\tbeen   passed  on  suspended<br \/>\napplication for\t permission to close. Any other order is not<br \/>\nconceivable because an order by way of review supersedes the<br \/>\norder reviewed\tbut not\t the subsequent\t order\ton  a  fresh<br \/>\napplication made  and such  subsequent order being operative<br \/>\nfor the\t next one  year cannot\tbe by passed by any order of<br \/>\nreview of the earlier order.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Although it  has not  been expressly  indicated  within<br \/>\nwhat period  a review  application validly  made  is  to  be<br \/>\ndisposed of,  but the provision that order on an application<br \/>\nfor closure  would remain  in force  for one year and in the<br \/>\nabsence of  any embargoed to make fresh application for such<br \/>\npermission after  expiry  of  one  year\t even  if  a  review<br \/>\napplication remains  pending, makes it abundantly clear that<br \/>\nin the scheme of Section 25(O), the review application is to<br \/>\nbe made before expiry of the said time frame of one year and<br \/>\nsuch application is to be disposed of within such time frame<br \/>\notherwise such\treview application  will become infructuous.<br \/>\nThe argument  that a  party should  not be  made  to  suffer<br \/>\nsimply on  account of  failure on  the part  of a  statutory<br \/>\nauthority to  dispose of  review application  within a\ttime<br \/>\nframe and  thereby rendering  it infructuous, is not tenable<br \/>\nbecause after expiry of the said time frame of one year, the<br \/>\nparty aggrieved\t has a\tright to make a fresh application by<br \/>\nincorporating  all   the  material   factors   germane\t for<br \/>\nconsideration of  its application  for permission  to close,<br \/>\nincluding  the\tfactors\t indicated  in\treview\tapplication.<br \/>\nNeither the  general principle\tof retaining jurisdiction to<br \/>\ndispose of review application validly made nor the principle<br \/>\nthat an\t authority if  clothed with the power of review will<br \/>\nnot become  functions officio after expiry of the time frame<br \/>\nof one\tyear but  it will retain its authority to dispose of<br \/>\nthe pending  review application will arise in the context of<br \/>\nthe scheme of Section 25 (O).\n<\/p>\n<p>     It also  appears  to  us  that  the  reference  to\t the<br \/>\nindustrial tribunal  for adjudication of the application for<br \/>\npermission to close an industrial unit is made under Section<br \/>\n25 (O)\t(5) of\tthe Act\t and such  reference  is  not  under<br \/>\nSection 10  (1) of the Act. Hence, although it was mentioned<br \/>\nin the\torder of  the State Government that the reference to<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal  for adjudication of the application for<br \/>\npermission for closure was made under Section 25 (O)(5) read<br \/>\nwith Section  10(1) of\tthe Act,  such reference  has in law<br \/>\nbeen made under Section 25 (O)(5) of the Act without the aid<br \/>\nof Section 10(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  aforesaid facts,  the impugned  decision to the<br \/>\neffect\tthat  the  State  Government  would  cease  to\thave<br \/>\njurisdiction to\t review its  order on  the  application\t for<br \/>\nclosure of  an industrial unit after expiry of one year from<br \/>\nthe date  of rejection\tof the application for permission to<br \/>\nclose, is correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It, however,  appears to  us that\tafter expiry  of one<br \/>\nyear from  the date  of rejection  of  the  application\t for<br \/>\npermission for\tclosure, the  appellant-company was entitled<br \/>\nto make\t a fresh  application. Such application has not been<br \/>\nmade because  a review\tapplication validly  made within the<br \/>\ntime frame  had not been disposed of by the State Government<br \/>\nand  the  appellant-Company  had  been\tlabouring  under  an<br \/>\nimpression that\t the State  Government could  pass  a  valid<br \/>\norder on the pending review application and State Government<br \/>\nhad in fact passed an order of reference for adjudication to<br \/>\nthe industrial\ttribunal. The appellant-Company had occasion<br \/>\nto feel assured about the validity of the order of reference<br \/>\nin view\t of dismissal  of the  Writ Petition  by the  Single<br \/>\nBench of  the High Court since moved by the respondent-Union<br \/>\nfor challenging the validity of the order of reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It also  appears that  on\tsuch  reference\t before\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal,  both the parties appeared and had made<br \/>\nsubmissions  and   the\thearing\t was  concluded\t before\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal.  In the  aforesaid circumstances,\tthis<br \/>\nCourt,\tduring\t the  pendency\tof  special  leave  petition<br \/>\nchallenging the\t order of  the Division\t Bench of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt allowing\tthe writ  petition and quashing the order of<br \/>\nreference, directed  the Industrial  Tribunal  to  make\t the<br \/>\naward and  send the same in a sealed cover to this Court and<br \/>\nsuch award has been sent in a sealed cover to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  special facts and circumstances of the case, it<br \/>\nwill be only appropriate to treat the application for review<br \/>\nwhich was pending after the expiry of the said time frame of<br \/>\none year  as a\tfresh application for permission for closure<br \/>\ndeemed to  have been  made on March 9, 1994 and to treat the<br \/>\norder of  reference to\tIndustrial  Tribunal  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  as\t an  order   of\t reference   on\t such  fresh<br \/>\napplication so\tthat the  entire exercise  made\t before\t the<br \/>\nTribunal by  both the  parties and  the award  made  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal are not rendered abortive. It may be indicated that<br \/>\nthe time  limit provided in Section 25 (O)(5) will not apply<br \/>\non the peculiar facts of this case as during the pendency of<br \/>\nthe writ  appeal before the High Court, the proceedings were<br \/>\nstayed and  pending the\t proceedings before  this Court, the<br \/>\nCourt had  permitted the  proceedings to go on but the award<br \/>\nwas not to be published and to be kept in sealed cover. Such<br \/>\ncourse of  action, in  the facts  of the  case, will be only<br \/>\nproper and  consistent with  the justice  to be made in this<br \/>\ncase, we  order accordingly.  Let  the\taward  be  published<br \/>\nwithin one  month from\tthe date  of receipt of the award on<br \/>\nbeing transmitted  to the  concerned Industrial Tribunal. It<br \/>\nis further directed that date of receipt of the award by the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal  on transmission from this Court will be<br \/>\ndeemed to  be the  date of  the award.\tIt is clarified that<br \/>\nonce the  award\t is  published,\t it  will  be  open  to\t the<br \/>\naggrieved party\t to challenge  the same\t in accordance\twith<br \/>\nlaw. The appeal is disposed of accordingly without any order<br \/>\nas to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1282, 1996 SCC (2) 118 Author: G Ray Bench: Ray, G.N. (J) PETITIONER: VAZIR GLASS WORKS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/01\/1996 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union ... on 4 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union ... on 4 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-23T19:04:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-23T19:04:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\"},\"wordCount\":6273,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\",\"name\":\"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union ... on 4 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-23T19:04:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union ... on 4 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union ... on 4 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-23T19:04:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996","datePublished":"1996-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-23T19:04:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996"},"wordCount":6273,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996","name":"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union ... on 4 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-23T19:04:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vazir-glass-works-ltd-vs-maharashtra-general-kamgar-union-on-4-january-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vazir Glass Works Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &#8230; on 4 January, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}