ISSUE:
Whether the Government, after initially refusing to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, can later reconsider and make such a reference?
Whether the termination of the workmen’s services constituted retrenchment under Section 25F or closure under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the painting section of the factory constituted an independent undertaking, justifying termination under Section 25FFF?
Whether the retrenchment of the workmen was legally valid in the absence of compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
RULE:
The Government’s power to refer an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) remains intact despite an earlier refusal. The phrase "at any time" negates the argument that a prior rejection exhausts this power. The formation of opinion is an administrative function, not subject to judicial scrutiny, and reconsideration does not require fresh material but may arise from concerns of industrial peace and fairness. A refusal does not extinguish the dispute but may, in fact, escalate tensions, warranting a later reference.
An "undertaking" under Section 25FFF must be a distinct and separate industrial or business activity, not a minor segment of a larger manufacturing process. A cessation of a specific function does not constitute closure but retrenchment. Employers cannot bypass Section 25F’s mandatory notice and compensation by labeling internal adjustments as closures. Allowing such a classification would enable circumvention of statutory protections, rendering the retrenchment unlawful.