B.P.Singh, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1 Hindalco Industries Ltd. is a Public Limited Company within the meaning of the Companies Act. Having its registered office at Century Bhavan, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Bombay. It has also an office at Court Road, Lohardaga. Petitioner No. 2, Sri Nawal Kishore Birla is a shareholder of petitioner No. 1 -Company is engaged in the business of producing primary aluminium metal and its alloys at its factory at Renukoot in Uttar Pradesh. The basic raw material for manufacture of Aluminium is Bauxite, and in order to meet its requirement of Bauxite, petitioner No. 1-Company has obtained mining leases in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. One of the leases held by the petitioner-Company is in respect of lands located in the district of Lohardaga consisting of both forest as well as non-forest land. The mining operations carried on over the said lease hold area is known as Maidanpat Bauxite Mine. The petitioner-Company initially carried on mining activity in the non-forest area comprised within its leasehold, and thereafter extended its mining activity to the forest area after obtaining permission of the Forest Department. However, by order dated July 24, 1993 the Divisional Forest Officer ordered the closure of the mining operation at the said mine with immediate effect. The aforesaid order of the Divisional Forest Officer is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1 from which it appears that under the directions of the Conservator of Forests the petitioner-Company was directed to stop its mining operations at the Maidanpat Bauxite Mine regardless of the fact whether the mining area was broken up before or after October 25, 1980. Though not mentioned in the said order, it is apparent that the said order was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer having regard to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they protested against the said order of the Divisional Forest Officer and contended that their lease was valid till January 2, 1997, and therefore they should be permitted to carry on mining operations. Various letters written by them in this connection have been annexed and marked collectively as Annexure 2. However, in view of the direction of the Divisional Forest Officer the work at the said mine was stopped resulting in permanent closure of the mine. Since there was no work for the workmen a lay-off was declared from July 31, 1993 which was notified to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Dhanbad. Lay-off compensation was also paid to the workmen. The petitioners were still hopeful that their representation may be favourably considered, and the order (Annexure 1) may be revoked. However, no favourable response came from the forest authorities leaving the petitioners with no option but to close down the mining operation. The said mine was closed with effect from August 19, 1993, and an intimation of closure was sent to the Divisional Forest Officer by letter dated August 20, 1993. A notice of closure under Sec. 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was also sent to the concerned authorities.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the provision of Sec. 25-O of the Act did not apply to forced closures, that is to say, a closure which is not a planned and intended closure, but one which is for reasons beyond the control of the Management. In the instant case, the closure was necessitated because of the orders passed by forest authorities, and there was no element of volition so far as the Management was concerned. In fact, the management intended to work the mine for the full term of the lease. However, though no permission for closure was required under Sec. 25-O of the Act, as a matter of abundant caution petitioner No. 1 applied to the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) for permission to effect a closure. A copy of the said