TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile mill at Mumbai which suffered heavy loss due to high increase in the cost of production and competition both in the domestic as well as international market. With the object to reduce its operational cost, agreements dated 6.7.2004 and 5.9.2005 were entered into by the company with its recognized union for reducing the workforce through an offer of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter in short 'VRS'). However, there was hardly any success in this exercise, and only about 800 employees opted for the VRS which left with 6700 employees still on its roll. Finally, a highly upgraded VRS was offered to the employees unilaterally by the respondent-company on 13.11.2006 which offer was valid till 12.12.2006. There was an overwhelming response to the said VRS and more than 6300 employees opted for the new VRS, and were accordingly relieved from service on payment of VRS benefits and all other legal dues. Only about 275 employees did not accept the above mentioned VRS and 230 of these were the petitioners before the High Court. 5. The respondent-company further alleged that its manufacturing activities in its textile mill came to an end on 13.12.2006 since it was left with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 25 O(1) so that an attempt for settlement could be made. Thus, the respondent-company alleged that its conduct was bona fide in seeking withdrawal of its closure application. 8. It appears, however, that the effort for an amicable settlement failed. Hence the respondent-company filed fresh application under Section 25 O(1) on 11.5.2007 before the Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai. 9. The appellant, which represents the workmen concerned, opposed the very entertainment of the second closure application under Section 25 O on the ground that the first application was withdrawn but without liberty from the concerned authority to file a fresh application. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court praying that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour should be directed not to take any further proceedings in relation to the closure application dated 11.5.2007 under Section 25-O. Since that writ petition was dismissed, hence this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly relied on the decision of this Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein, which have been quoted above. The said decision was given on the basis of public policy that, if while hearing the first writ petition the Bench is inclined to dismiss it, and the learned counsel withdraws the petition so that he could file a second writ petition before what he regards as a more suitable or convenient bench, then if he withdraws it he should not be allowed to file a second writ petition unless liberty is given to do so. In other words, bench-hunting should not be permitted. 14. It often happens that during the hearing of a petition the Court makes oral observations indicating that it is inclined to dismiss the petition. At this stage the counsel may seek withdrawal of his petition without getting a verdict on the merits, with the intention of filing a fresh petition before a more convenient bench. It was this malpractice which was sought to be discouraged by the decision in Sarguja Transport case (supra). 15. On the subject of precedents Lord Halsbury, L.C., said in Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495: Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton (1951 AC 737 at page 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, Lord Atkin`s speech . is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition; it will require qualification in new circumstances. Megarry, J. in (1971)1 WLR 1062 observed: One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L. J. as if it were an Act of Parliament. And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said: There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawn in order to do bench hunting or for some other mala fide purpose. 21. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that although the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply to proceedings under Section 25-O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings under in any other Act, some of the general principles in the CPC may be applicable. For instance, even if Section 11 of the CPC does not in terms strictly apply because both the proceedings may not be suits, the general principle of res judicata may apply vide Pondicherry Khadi Village Industries Board vs. P. Kulothangan and another 2004 (1) SCC 68. However, this does not mean that all provisions in the CPC will strictly apply to proceedings which are not suits. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on an observation in the decision of this Court in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey 2006(1) SCC 479, in paragraph 38 of which it is stated: Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers powers upon the court to mould relief in a given situation. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
