Back
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Based on
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
This judgment, for clarity and ease of reference, is divided as follows:
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| THE APPEALS | |
| BACKGROUND TO THE WRIT PETITIONS | |
| THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT | |
| SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES | |
| A. Appellants | |
| B. Respondents | |
| QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED | |
| ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION | |
| CONCLUSION | |
Leave Granted.
THE APPEALS
2. These appeals by special leave, question the correctness of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 17th February 20231[Hereinafter ‘impugned judgment’], in Writ Petition No.3447 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.3397 of 2019, preferred by the appellants herein in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.4268 of 2019 and by the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.4565 of 2023, respectively.
BACKGROUND TO THE WRIT PETITIONS
3. The factual backdrop in which the writ petitions came to be filed is indisputably identical. As such we refer to the facts of the first appeal, which are as below :
3.1 Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited (Biscuit Division) 2[Abbreviated as ‘HSML’] is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in biscuit manufacturing for Britannia Industries
Closure of an undertaking – An employer seeking to close his business must show compelling and overriding circumstances – Order accepting or rejecting application for closure is an administrative ord....
The deeming fiction under Sec. 25-O(3) of the ID Act is not triggered if the closure applications are incomplete and deficiencies are communicated by the State Government within 60 days. The petition....
The court upheld the legality of the closure of the industrial establishment, affirming that the majority acceptance of a severance package by workers binds all, including dissenting individuals.
The provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act are directory, allowing for closure applications to be valid even if adjudicated after one year from the refusal of closure permission.
The court established that a closure permitted under the Industrial Disputes Act remains valid unless successfully challenged within a reasonable timeframe.
The refusal to permit closure of a business under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was arbitrary and not sustainable, as the employer is not required to submit restructuring plans.
Closure of business does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reaffirming that termination due to closure is outside statutory definitions of retrenchment.
The validity of closure negates grounds for reinstatement unless framed properly within statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consequences of an illegal closure are statutorily prescribed, and the workmen are entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
