Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Excel Wear V Union of India

    Uploaded by

    Anugya Dubey
    The document discusses the constitutional validity of Sections 25(O) and 25(R) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It details a case where a partnership firm manufacturing garments for export wanted to close down due to deteriorating relations with employees but was denied permission by the state government. The Supreme Court of India held that the right to close down a business is part of the right to carry on a business guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the restrictions imposed by the impugned law were unreasonable and arbitrary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Excel Wear V Union of India

    Uploaded by

    Anugya Dubey
    71 views2 pages
    The document discusses the constitutional validity of Sections 25(O) and 25(R) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It details a case where a partnership firm manufacturing garments for export wanted to close down due to deteriorating relations with employees but was denied permission by the state government. The Supreme Court of India held that the right to close down a business is part of the right to carry on a business guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the restrictions imposed by the impugned law were unreasonable and arbitrary.

    Original Title

    excel wear v union of india

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the constitutional validity of Sections 25(O) and 25(R) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It details a case where a partnership firm manufacturing garments for export wanted to close down due to deteriorating relations with employees but was denied permission by the state government. The Supreme Court of India held that the right to close down a business is part of the right to carry on a business guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the restrictions imposed by the impugned law were unreasonable and arbitrary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Excel Wear V Union of India

    Uploaded by

    Anugya Dubey
    The document discusses the constitutional validity of Sections 25(O) and 25(R) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It details a case where a partnership firm manufacturing garments for export wanted to close down due to deteriorating relations with employees but was denied permission by the state government. The Supreme Court of India held that the right to close down a business is part of the right to carry on a business guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the restrictions imposed by the impugned law were unreasonable and arbitrary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    http://JUDIS.NIC.

    IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 29


    PETITIONER:
    EXCEL WEAR ETC.

    Vs.

    RESPONDENT:
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1978

    BENCH:
    UNTWALIA, N.L.
    BENCH:
    UNTWALIA, N.L.
    CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
    SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
    KOSHAL, A.D.
    SEN, A.P. (J)

    CITATION:
    1979 AIR 25 1979 SCR (1)1009
    1978 SCC (4) 224
    CITATOR INFO :
    RF 1981 SC 234 (103)
    RF 1985 SC 613 (5)
    E 1991 SC 101 (27)

    ACT:
    Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sections 25(O) and Section
    25(R)-Constitutional Validity of-Whether right to close down
    an undertaking a fundamental right.

    HEADNOTE:
    The facts of only one petition are set out because they
    are similar to facts in other petitions. Excel Wear is a
    partnership firm manufacturing garments for export. About
    400 workmen were employed in the petitioners’ factory. The
    case of the petitioners is that the relations between the
    management and the employees started deteriorating and
    became very strained from 1976. The workmen became very
    militant, aggressive, violent and indulged in unjustifiable
    or illegal strikes. Various incidents have been mentioned in
    the Writ Petition in support of the said allegations.
    However, since those facts were seriously challenged and
    disputed by the workmen, the Court did not refer to them in
    any detail nor expressed any view one way or the other.
    (2) According to the petitioners it became almost
    impossible to carry on the business. The petitioners,
    therefore, served a notice dated 2nd May, 1977 on the
    Government of Maharashtra, respondent No 2 for previous
    approval of the intended closure of the undertaking in
    accordance with section 25(O)(1). The State Government
    refused to accord the approval on the ground that the
    intended closure was prejudicial to public interest.
    (3 ) The petitioners contended:
    (a) A right to close down a business is an integral
    part of the right to carry on a business guaranteed under
    Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The impugned law imposes
    a restriction on the said fundamental right which is highly
    unreasonable. excessive and arbitrary. It is not a
    restriction but almost amounts to the destruction or
    negation of that right. The restrictions imposed is
    http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 29
    category (i.e. contravening Art. 19) may be valid qua
    non-citizens; but that is a wholly unrealistic
    consideration and it seems to us that such nationally
    partial valid existence of the said laws on the
    strength of hypothetical and pedanic considerations
    cannot justify the application of the doctrine of
    eclipse to them." (Vide Seervai’s Constitutional Law of
    India, 2nd edition, page 180).
    Of course, in none of the three cases aforesaid the decision
    of this Court in Sundararamaier’s case was considered. For
    our purpose we have merely pointed out the divergence of
    opinion on this aspect of the matter, although for the
    decision of the point at issue, even Sundararamaier’s case
    does not make good the submission of Mr. Ramamurthi. Mr.
    Ramamurthi was not right in pressing this ratio in support
    of his contention. The content of Article 358 and 31C is
    entirely different. The former Article, rather, works in the
    reverse gear. It does not lift the ban in the way of the
    State to enact a law in violation of Article 19. It puts the
    ban under suspension during the period of Emergency and the
    suspension comes to an end on its lifting. Article 31C has
    no words to indicate that the ban is removed by it. It
    merely saves the law enacted after coming into force of the
    said Article. We, therefore, must reject the argument of Mr.
    Ramamurthi with reference to Article 31C of the
    Constitution.
    1046
    In the result all the petitions are allowed and it is
    declared that Section 25-O of the Act as a whole and Section
    25-R in so far as it relates to the awarding of punishment
    for infraction of the provisions of Section 25-O are
    constitutionally bad and invalid for violation of Article
    19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned
    orders passed under sub-section (2) of Section 25-O in all
    the cases are held to be void and the respondents are
    restrained from enforcing them. We must, however, make it
    clear that since the orders fall on the ground of the
    constitutional invalidity of the law under which they have
    been made, we have not thought it fit to express any view in
    regard to their merits otherwise. We make no order as to
    costs in any of the petitions.
    P.H.P. Petitions allowed
    1047

    You might also like