# / WORKMEN OF MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC v. MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC - **Citation:** [1992] 3 S.C.R. 409 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1992-05-15 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1983 - **Bench:** J.S.Verma, K. Jayachandra Reddy, S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, R.C. Patnaik - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-of-meenakshi-mills-ltd-etc-etc-v-meenakshi-mills-ltd-and-anr-etc-etc-11580 - **Pages:** 56 ## Headnote Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules: 'B Section 25-N/Rule 76-A and Form P-A-Rcstriction imposed on C employer's right to retrench workmen-Whether violative of Article 19( 1 )(g)'-Whether provision saved by Article .19( 6 }-Confem1ent of power to grant or refuse permission to retrench workmen on appropriate Government-Whether valid-Delegation of power to appropriate Government to specify authority-Whether unreasonable or arbitrary-Power to refuse or grant pennission-4Vhether administrative or judicial in nature-Whether non- ,D prescription of principles or guidelines for exeri:ise of powl'r and absence of provision for appeal or judicial review render provision unconstitutional-Denial of right to employer to challenge order refusing permis~ion to 1 retrench while granting similar right to workmen to challenge order granting pennission-Wliether discriminatory and unreasonable: E Constitution of India, .1950: Articles 14, 19(l)(g)," 19(6), 136 and 226-Restrictions imposed on the employer's right to retrench workmen-Constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-~rr:ise of power to grant or refuse F permission to retrench workmett-Non-prescription of guidelines-Wliether a vitiating factor-Absence of appeal or revision or review against the order of authority-Whether arbitrary or unreasonable-Denial of right to employer to challenge order refusing pennissi01i to retrench, while granting a similar right to workmen to challenge order granting permission to retrenclt-Whether G discriminatory. The validity of Section 25-N in Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976, prescribing conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen in an industrial establishment, was challenged before various High Courts. There was difference of opinion H 409 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R. A amongst the High Courts. ~ile one High Court upheld the validity of the · -l( Section, two other High Courts held the Section to be violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of the employer to retrench workmen, B and invalid. The correctness of the decisions of these two High Court was challenged in the appeals and Writ Petitions filed before this Court. On behalf of the workmens it was contended that the right to retrench the workmen could only be regarded as a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitated the exercise of the right to carry on business but it could not be treated as an integral part of the right to carry on business; that the C employers in the instant cases were all companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956; and a company, being an artificial person, was not a citizen and it could not claim the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution; that the shareholder of a limited company could not be permitted to challenge the validity of Section 25-N inasmuch as by the said provision none of the fundamental rights of the D shareholder is impaired; that i.n a modern public company, the shareholder, although a member, was in economic reality, a mere lender of capital on which he hoped for retuni but without any effective control over the borrower; that while considering the matter of grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment the appropriate Government or authority was required to E exercise its power in a quasi-judicial manner, i.e., it must pass the order after affording an opportunity to both the parties, (the employer and the workmen) to make their submissions; that reference of a dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal depended on the discretion of the appropriate Government and there was no right as such to approach the Industrial Tribunal; that the power that was exercised by the appropriate F Government or authority under sub- section (2) of section 25-N was similar to th~t exercised by the v ## Text _Characters 0–39,999 of 138,336. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._ - . / WORKMEN OF MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. A v. MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC. MAY 15, 1992 [J.S.VERMA, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S.C. AGRAWAL, G.N. RAY AND R.C. PATNAIK, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules: 'B Section 25-N/Rule 76-A and Form P-A-Rcstriction imposed on C employer's right to retrench workmen-Whether violative of Article 19( 1 )(g)'-Whether provision saved by Article .19( 6 }-Confem1ent of power to grant or refuse permission to retrench workmen on appropriate Government-Whether valid-Delegation of power to appropriate Government to specify authority-Whether unreasonable or arbitrary-Power to refuse or grant pennission-4Vhether administrative or judicial in nature-Whether non- ,D prescription of principles or guidelines for exeri:ise of powl'r and absence of provision for appeal or judicial review render provision unconstitutional-Denial of right to employer to challenge order refusing permis~ion to 1 retrench while granting similar right to workmen to challenge order granting pennission-Wliether discriminatory and unreasonable: E Constitution of India, .1950: Articles 14, 19(l)(g)," 19(6), 136 and 226-Restrictions imposed on the employer's right to retrench workmen-Constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-~rr:ise of power to grant or refuse F permission to retrench workmett-Non-prescription of guidelines-Wliether a vitiating factor-Absence of appeal or revision or review against the order of authority-Whether arbitrary or unreasonable-Denial of right to employer to challenge order refusing pennissi01i to retrench, while granting a similar right to workmen to challenge order granting permission to retrenclt-Whether G discriminatory. The validity of Section 25-N in Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976, prescribing conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen in an industrial establishment, was challenged before various High Courts. There was difference of opinion H 409 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R. A amongst the High Courts. ~ile one High Court upheld the validity of the · -l( Section, two other High Courts held the Section to be violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of the employer to retrench workmen, B and invalid. The correctness of the decisions of these two High Court was challenged in the appeals and Writ Petitions filed before this Court. On behalf of the workmens it was contended that the right to retrench the workmen could only be regarded as a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitated the exercise of the right to carry on business but it could not be treated as an integral part of the right to carry on business; that the C employers in the instant cases were all companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956; and a company, being an artificial person, was not a citizen and it could not claim the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution; that the shareholder of a limited company could not be permitted to challenge the validity of Section 25-N inasmuch as by the said provision none of the fundamental rights of the D shareholder is impaired; that i.n a modern public company, the shareholder, although a member, was in economic reality, a mere lender of capital on which he hoped for retuni but without any effective control over the borrower; that while considering the matter of grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment the appropriate Government or authority was required to E exercise its power in a quasi-judicial manner, i.e., it must pass the order after affording an opportunity to both the parties, (the employer and the workmen) to make their submissions; that reference of a dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal depended on the discretion of the appropriate Government and there was no right as such to approach the Industrial Tribunal; that the power that was exercised by the appropriate F Government or authority under sub- section (2) of section 25-N was similar to th~t exercised by the various authorities under section 33 of the Act while giving approval to the action taken by the management in discharging or punishing a workman whether by dismissal or otherwise or altering the condition.s of service of the workman, that in cases where.such approval was given to the action of the management, it was open to the workmen to raise a G dispute and have it referred for adjudication under section 10 of the Act but no similar right was available to the management. On behalf of the employers it was submitted that the right of the employer to carry on any business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) H included the right to organise the business in a way that it was most - -{ WORKMEN v. MEENAKSHI MILLS 411 >- beneficial for him and, if necessary, this may be achieved by limiting the A labour force employed in the establishment and, therefore, the right to retrench workmen was an . integral part of the right to carry on the business, and stood on a higher footing than the right to close the business because in the case of retrenchment, the business was continuing and only a part of labour force was dispensed with; that the appropriate Govern- B mentor authority, while exercising power to grant or refuse permission to I ! retrench under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N acted purely in an ad- ~ ministrative capacity; that while passing an order under sub-section (2), the appropriate Government or authority could either grant or refuse permission for the proposed retrenchment in its entirety and that it was c not permissible for it to grant permission for retrenchment of some out of the workmen proposed to be retrenched and refuse such permission in respect of the rest; that since no indication about the factors which were to be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government or authority ~ ~ while exercising its power was given in sub-section (2), it should be held that Parliament did not intend to alter the existing law governing retrench· D ment and the principles of industrial law that were applied by Industrial Tribunals for examining the validity of retrenchment under Section 25-F would also be applicable in the matter of exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 25-N and that the principle of statutory construction ·was that the legislature should not be considered to make radical changes E ~. in law without using explicit language which unmistakably pointed in that direction; that in sub-section (7) or section 25-N, an indication had been given by the legislature about the factors which may be taken into con· sideration by the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its power under sub-section (2), that the two circumstances referred to in F sub-section (7), viz., retrenchment being by way of victimisation or the retrenchment not being in the interest of maintenance of industrial peace, ~ could be treated as the factors which were required to be taken into account by the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its powers under sub-section (2); that if the appropriate Government or 0 authority, while passing the order under sub-section (2) was held to be exercising functions which were judicial •n nature, then it must be held to be functioning as a tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution and an appeal would lie to this Court against such an order; that prior to the enactment of S.25-N, the validity of retrenchment in all industrial establishments, big or small, was required to be judicially determined by H 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R. A industrial tribunals/labou.r courts by following the normal judicial procedure and as a result of the enactment of S.25-N retrenchment of workmen '->J( in industrial establishments to which the said provisions were applicable would be examined by the appropriate Government or the authority specified by the appropriate Government and the said authority could be B any officer who m:ed not he trained in law; that S.25-N did not give any indication about the status and qualifications of the officer who would be entrusted with the power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment of workmen under sub-section (2) and it was left to the unguided discretion of the appropriate Government to nominate any officer as the authority -...,/ entitled to exercise this power; that sub-section (2) of section 25-N did not C prescribe any guidelines or principles to govern the exercise of the power that had been conferred on the appropriate government or the authority in the matter of grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment and in the absence of such guidelines or principles, it would be open to the appropriate Government or authority to take into account matters having D no bearing or relevance to the legitimate need of the employer to reorganise his business and which might even be opposed to such need and that it would be permissible to pass the order by taking into consideration the state of unemployment in the State; that the requirement that reasons should be recorded in the order that was passed by the appropriate E Government or authority would not provide any protection against arbitrary action because in the absence of principles governing the exercise of the power, there was no touchstone to assess the validity of those reasons; that the considerations referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 25-N, as substituted by Amending Act 49 of 1984, were declaratory in F character and the same were also required to be taken into consideration in the matter of exercise of power by the appropriate Government or the authority under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N as originally enacted, that the "interest of the workmen and all other relevant factors" would result in introducing impermissible elements in the matter of exercise of the pow~r to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment inasmuch as the G order for grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment was only to be based on the relevant circumstances, namely, that the action of the employer was bona fide and was not actuated by victimisation or unfair labour practice, and that the retrenchment would always be prejudicial to the "interests of the workmen" and if the interests of workmen were to be H taken into consideration, permission for retrenchment would never be -- { WORKMEN v. MEENAKSHI MILLS 413- )r granted; that no provisions had been made for an appeal or revision A against the order passed by the appropriate Government or authority granting or refusing permission· for retrenchment of workmen under subsection (2) of section 25-N, nor was there any provision for review, that the remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was not an adequate remedy inasmuch as the scope of judicial review under Article B' 226 of the Constitution was very limited and did not em•ble challenge on the ground of an error of fact in the order; that the permission for \ retrenchment of workmen may be refused by the appropriate Government ~ or authority under sub-section (2) of section 25-N on policy considerations and in that event relief under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be available, and that the provisions were ex-facie arbitrary and dis- c criminatory inasmuch as while the workmen had a right to challenge on facts, the correctness of an order passed under sub-section (2) granting permission for retrenchment before the Industrial Tribunal by seeking a ~ reference under Section 10 of the Act, the management did not have a similar right to challenge the validity of an order passed under sub-section D (2) refusing or granting permission for retrenchment. Upholding the validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood prior to its amendment by Amendment Act of 1984; and directing the matters to be placed before a Division Bench for disposal, this ~ Court, E HELD: 1. Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not sutler from the vice of unconstitutionality on the ground that it was violative - of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution. (464 E] F Excel Wear etc. v. Union of India and Ors., (1979] 1SCR1009 distin- ~ guished. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. T. Gattiah & Ors., D.B. Writ Appeal 16 of1981, approved. G K. V. Rajendran v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and others, (1980) 2 LU 275 andM/s J.K. Synthetics andAnr. v. Union of India and Ors., . ---(· (1984) 48FLR125, overruled • 2.1 The object underlying the enactment of section 25-N, by introducing prior scrutiny of the reasons for retrenchment is to prevent avoidable . H 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R. A hardship to the employees resulting from retrenchment by protecting . existing employment and check the growth of unemploymeni which would otherwise be the consequence of retrenchment in industrial establishments employing large number of workmen. It is also intended to maintain higher tempo of production and ·productivity by preserving industrial peace and harmony. In that sense, Section 25-N seeks to give effect to the mandate • B contained in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. The restrictions imposed by Section 25-N on the right of the employer to retrench the workmen must, therefore, be regarded as having been imposed in the interest of general public. (440 G, 441 A-BJ C 2.2 Ordinarily any restriction so imposed which has the effect of D E F promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest. A restriction imposed on the employer's right to terminate the service of an employee is not alien to the Constitutional scheme which indicates that the employer's right is not absolute. [ 441 CJ The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, [1960J 2 SCR 32, at pp. 36-37; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1985J Suppl 2 SCR Sl; Barsky v. Board of Regents sts of the workmen is not a relevant factor for exercising the said power. [455 C-D] Prof. Gower: Principles of Modem Company Law 4th Edn. p.10., referred to. 8.2 The Indian Constitution recognises the role of workers in the management of the industries inasmuch as Article 43A requires that the State shall take steps by suitable legislation or in any nther way to secure tbe. participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry. [ 455 F] 8.3 The expression 'interests of workers', covers the interests of all the workers employed in the establishment, including not only the workers who are proposed to be retrenched but also the workers who are to be retained. It would be in the interests of the workers as a whole that the D industrial establishment in which ther are employed continues to run in good health because sickness leading to closure of the establishment would result in unemployment for all of them. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the interests of workmen would always be adverse to the interests of the industrial establishment and no order granting permission for the retrenchment would be passed if the interests of the workers is to be taken E into consideration. Since retrenchment of a large number of workmen • would lead to worsening of the unemployment situation it cannot be said that the condition of unemployment in the particular industry or the condition of unemployment in the particular State have no relevance to the exercise of the power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment F of workmen under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N. These factors cannot . be treated as alien to the factors which are required to be considered for exercising the said power. It is, therefore, not correct to say that sub-section (2) of Section 25-N by enabling the appropriate Government or authority to take into consideration the condition of employment in the industry or the condition of employment in the State imposes an unG reasonable restriction on the right of the employer under Article 19(1) (g). [457 D-G] National Textiles v. P.R. Ramakishnan, [1983] 1SCR922, relied on. 8.4 It is also not correct to say that the requirement of passing a H speaking order containing reasons as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section - WORKMEN v. MEENAKSHI MILLS 421 25-N does not provide sufficient safeguard against arbitrary action. Ir· A respective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself, serves a salutary purpose, viz., it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. [ 457 ff, 458 Al S.N. Mukliefjee v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 594, relied on. B 9.1 The order under sub-section (2) granting or refusing permission 1 for retrenchment is to be passed either by the appropriate Government or\ authority specified by the appropriate Government, and the said order is 1 required to be a speaking order based on objective consideration of: relevant facts after following the principles of natural justice. In the C circumstance!i the absence of a provision for appeal or revision is not of much consequence, especi1,dly when it is open to an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Con· stitution. (460 C·D] State of Bihar v. KKMisra & Ors., [1970) 3 SCR 181 and Excel Wear etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 1009, distinguished. Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, (1980] 1 SCR 61 and Babubhai and Co. & Ors.· v. State of Gujarat, [1985] 3 SCR 614, referred D to. ~ 9.2 The remedy of judicial review under Article 226 is an adequate protection against arbitrary action in the matter of exercise of power by the appropriate Government or authority under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N of the Act. (461 DJ Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1974] 2 SCR 787 and G.B. Mahajan & Ors. v. Jalgaon Municipal Council & Ors., [1991] 3 sec 91, distinguished. F I Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New G Delhi & Ors., (1978] 2 SCR 272, referred to. I ---', 10. In order to validly retrench the workmen under St:etion 25-N, apart from obtaining permission for such retrenchment under sub-section (2), an employer has also to fulfil other requirements, namely, to give three months, notice or pay wages in lieu of notiee to the workmen proposed to H \ 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. A be retrenched under clause (a) of sub-section (1), pay retrenchment com- 'ff pensation to them under clause (b) of sub-section (1) and to comply with the requirement of section 25-G, which is applicable to retrenchment under section 25-N in view of section 25-S. An industrial dispute may arise on account of failure on the part of the employer to comply with these conditions and the same can be referred for adjudication under section 10. B In addition, an industrial dispute could also be raised by the workmen in a case where retrenchment has been effected on the basis of permission / . deemed to have been granted under sub-section (3) of section 25-N on ..... account of failure on ti.e part of the appropriate Government or authority to communicate the order granting or refusing permission for retrench· C ment within a period of three months from the date of the service of notice under clause (c) of sub-section (1) because in such a case, there has been no consideration, on merits, of the reasons for proposed retrenchment by · thE appropriate Government or authority and reference of the dispute for i.. adjudication would not be precluded. (462 G·H, 463 A·C] ,.,,,.._ D 10.2 Since there is no provision similar to that contained in sub-section (7) of section 25-N attaching finality to an order passed under sub-section (2) it would be permissible for the workmen aggrieved by retrenchment effected in pursuance of an order granting permission for such retrenchment to raise an industrial dispute claiming that the E retrenchment was not justified and it would be permissible for the appropriate Government to refer. such dispute for. adjudication though the likelihood of such a dispute being referred for adjudication would be extremely remote since the order granting permission for retrenchment would have been passed either by the appropriate Government or authority F specified by the appropriate Government and reference under s.10 of the Act is also to be made by the appropriate Government. Since the expression "industrial dispute" as defined in section 2(k) of the Act covers a dispute connected with non-employment of any person and section 10 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to make a reference in a ... - - G case where an industrial dispute is apprehended, an employer proposing retrenchment of workmen, who feels aggrieved by an order refusing per· mission for retrenchment under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N, can also move for reference of such a dispute relating to eroposed retrenchment for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act though the possibility of such a reference would be equally remote. The employer who feels aggrieved by )- H an order refusing permission for retrenchment thus stands on the same - - WORKMEN v. MEENAKSHI MILLS 423 footing as the workmen feeling aggrieved by an order granting permission A for retrenchment under sub-section (2) df Section 25-N inasmuch as it is permissible for both to raise an industrial dispute which may be referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government and it cannot be said that, as compared to the workmen, the employer sutlers from a disadvantage in the matter of raising an industrial dispute and having it referred for B adjudication. [ 463 D·H, 464 A] All Saints High Schoo~ Hyderabad etc. v. Government of A.P. & Ors. etc., (1980] 2 SCR 924, referred to. 11. In view of the fact that some of the grounds for challenging the C validity of Section 25-N on the ground of violation of Article 19 can also be made the basis for challenging the ground of violation of Article 14, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the right to retrench the workmen is an integral part of the right of the employer to carry on the business or it is only a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitates the exercise of the said fundamental right to carry on the business and it D can be assumed that the right to retrench the workman is an integral part of the fundamental right of the employer to carry on the business under Article 19(1)(g). For the same reason, challenge to the validity of Section 25-N could not be ruled out on the ground that a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, being not a citizen, cannot invoke the fundamen• E tai right under Article 19 and the shareholders of the companies seeking to challenge the validity of Section 25-N in the instant cases cannot complain of infringement of their fundamental right under Article 19. [ 435 H, 436 A·C) All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribuna(, (1962] 3 SCR 269; Marieka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1956] SCR 393; State Trading Corporaiion of India Ltd. & Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatna111 and Ors., (1964) 4 SCR 99 and State of Madras v. V.G. Row, (1952] 3 SCR 597, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1983 etc. etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.1982 of the Madras High F G Court in Writ Appeal No. 489 of 1978. H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. A M.K. Ramamurthy, Dr. Sankar Ghose, R.K. Garg, G.B. Pai, F.S. Nariman, Hardev Singh, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, C. Ramamurthy, M.A. Chinaswamy, H. Subramaniam,. C.S. Vaidyanathan, T.Raju, Mrs. Smitha Singh, J. Ramamurthy, R. Vaigai, P.P. Singh, M.P. Jha, Jitendra Sharma, R.S. Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja, R. Mohan, Krishna Kumar, Ms. Poonam B Madan, Ashok Kumar Gupta, V.D. Mehta, R.F. Nariman, R. Narain, Ashok Sagar, D.N. Mishra, Ms. Madho Moolchaudani, V. Krishnamurthy, Vimal Dave, W.C. Chopra, H.K. Puri, and Rajeshwar Rao for the appearing parties. c The Judgnient of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals and writ petitions have been placed before us on a rderence by a Division Bench of this Court for the reason that they raise the question involving the constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). The validity of the said provision is assailed on the ground D that it is violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not saved by Clause (6) of Article 19. Since the only question required to be considered by us is with regard to the validity of section 25-N of the Act and it can be decided on the basis E of the relevant provisions of the Act without going into the facts of each case, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts. Section 25-N forms part of Chapter V-B which bears the heading "Special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments". The said Chapter consists of Sections 25-K to 25-S and F was inserted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 32 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Act', with effect from March 5, 1976. Section 25-K, as originally enacted, confined the applicability of the provisions of Chapter V-B to industrial establishments in which not less ·than 300 workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months. Section 25-M makes G provision for prohibition of lay-off. Section 25-N prescribes the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. Section 25-0 prescribes the procedure for closing down an undertaking. Sections 25-P contains special provision as to restarting of undertakings closed down before commencement of the 1976 Act. Section 25~0 imposes the penalty on the employee H for contravention of th