Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

Issue notice.

Mr. Pant accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.4.

The present special appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.2185 of 2022 preferred by the respondent no.4-Union.

The only substantive prayer in the writ-petition, which has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order was as follows:-

“(I). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents decide the representation/application of the petitioner union under section 3(a)(b) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act pending before the respondent no.1.”

The learned Single Judge has eventually directed the respondent no.1 i.e. State of Uttarakhand to decide the representation given by the respondent-union within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

The representation is to be decided by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner, as well as the representative of the appellant-company.

The submission of Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that while passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has proceeded to make observations, though at a, prima facie, stage, on the issue whether the closure is illegal or not?

The perusal of the impugned order shows that there was absolutely no occasion for the learned Single Judge to go into the said issue.

Mr. Gupta has also pointed out that the issue whether the closure is legal or illegal is already pending in a reference before the Labour Court.

He has raised other submissions with regard to the authority and jurisdiction of the State to decide the representation made by the respondent-union.

On the other hand, Mr. Pant, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent-union submits that the power and jurisdiction vests in the respondent-State Government to examine the representation of the respondent-union and take action under Section 3(a)(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that the issue whether the closure was legal or illegal was not even the issue arising for consideration in the writ-proceedings since the limited relief sought by the respondent-writ-petitioner was for a direction to the respondent-State to decide its representation under Section 3(a)(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

The observations made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the closure being illegal were not called for. Pertinently, no counter affidavit had been called for in the writ-proceedings and none had been filed by the respondents.

We, therefore, firstly, expunge the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.10 of the impugned order and that shall not be relied upon in any proceedings whether while deciding the representation made by the respondent-Union or before the Labour Court.

It goes without saying that the said issue with regard to the legality or illegality of the closure may be independently decided by the competent authorities before whom such issue arises for consideration.

Since, the appellant as well as the respondent no.4 have been given the right to represent themselves while the representation of the respondent-Union is decided by the State Government under Section 3(a)(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, it shall be open to both the parties to raise all their pleas, which shall be considered by the State Government while deciding the representation including the scope of Section 3 as well as the jurisdiction.

The time granted by the learned Single Judge shall run from today.

With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the present special appeal.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied, today itself, to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rule.