IMPORTANT POINT
In the scheme of Section 25(O) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when an application for closure of industrial unit is made, it should be decided within 60 days of making of application and that decision will be operative for one year from date of decision. A review application can be made within said one year and has to be decided within said one year otherwise such review application will become infructuous.

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray.J.-Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 9, 1994 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 460 of 1994 reversing the order dated June 22, 1994 passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in writ Petition No. 1446 of 1994.

3. By the impugned order, reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 25(O)(3) read with Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act made by the Industires. Energy and Labour Department, Government of Maha-rashtra. On April 7, 1994 was set aside.

4. It appears that the appellant, a Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act had an Unit at Andheri, Bombay. According to the Company, the said unit became a heavily losing business venture for reasons beyond the control of the Company and the said unit started incurring losses from the year 1991-1992. The loss suffered by the said unit was to the tune of Rs. 29.20 lakhs. The factory of the appellant-Company and Andheri was closed since November 3, 1992 and since thereafter, on manufacturing activity has been carried on in the said unit.

5. It is the case of the Company that it had employed 774 workmen originally in the said unit and after the said unit became a losing concern, in order to rehabilitate the workmen of the said unit, the Company offered generous Voluntary Retirement Schemes from time to time to its workmen despite the Company s financial hardship. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme was accepted by the majority of the workmen and out of 774 originally employed, 454 workmen had accepted the said scheme requiring payment to be made to the tune of Rs. 560 lakhs. As 320 workmen did not accept the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellant-Company was constrained to seek closure of its industrial unit at Andheri because the monthly wage bill of the remaining wokmen would be Rs. 12 lakhs and the other establishment expenses being another 12 lakhs per month, the total cost to be incurred by the Company for the said unit would be about 3 crores per annum.

6. The Company, therefore, made an application on August 14, 1992 for cosure of the said unit at Andheri under Section 25(O)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act). Such application, however, was rejected by the State Government on October 12, 1992. The Company thereafter made an application for review of the said order on February 23, 1993 under Section 25(O)(5) of the Act which was well within one year of the order of rejection.

7. The said review application was kept pending by the State Government and in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 25(O)(3) read with Section 10(1) of the Act, instead of reviewing the order of rejection dated October 12, 1992 the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the case of closure made by the Company. Such reference was made after notice and opportunity of being heard given to the respondent No. 1. namely, the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.

The Union thereafter moved a writ petition before the Bombay High Court representing the interest of the said 320 workmen, challenging the legality and validity of the order of reference made by the State Government under Section 25(O)(5) read with Section 10(1) of the Act. The said writ Petition No. 1446 of 1994 was rejected by the Single Bench of the High Court by the order dated 22nd June,1994. The Union thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court being writ Appeal No. 460 of 1994 assailing the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in the said writ petition. It has been held by the Division Bench that: (1)in terms of Section 25(O)(4) of the Act. the order passed on the application for closure remains operative for one year from the date of such order a