SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 506

2001(8) Supreme 516
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu and S.N. Variava, JJ.
State of Haryana & Anr. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Hitkari Potteries Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6263 of 1999
Decided on 20-3-2001

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-Order (3)-Application for, permission to close down the company-Failure to communicate order granting or refusing permission within 60 days-Permission shall be deemed to have been granted on expiration of 60 days period-Application was made on 15.1.1998 by respondent-Communication was sent long after expiry of 60 days period on 2.4.1998-View of High Court that necessary permission was deemed to have been granted was correct and no interference was called for. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

An application was made by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act ) for permission to close down the company on 15.1.1998. On 2.4.1998 a letter was sent by on behalf of the Government to the respondent to the effect that the application filed by it is defective in certain aspects and is hence rejected.

2. Under Section 24-O (3) of the Act if Government does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of 60 days from the date on which such application is made, permission applied shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of 60 days.

3. In the present case the application was not disposed of within a period of 60 days from 15.1.1998 and a communication was sent only long after expiry of that period on 2.4.1998. In that view of the matter the view taken by the High Court that necessary permission as contemplated under the provisions of Section 24-O of the Act is deemed to have been granted appears to us to be correct and certain provisions have been made by the High Court in its order regarding protection of rights of the workmen and as claimed by them before the Court. In that view of the matter no useful purpose would be served in going into various questions raised herein the orders were made by the High Court on 15.1.1999 and no steps were taken to obtain any interim order either from that Court or from this Court till 23.7.1999. We think the order made by the High Court should be sustained and no interference is called for. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

*************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

State of Haryana & Anr. v. Hitkari Potteries Ltd., 2001(8) Supreme 516

00018

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top