A.K.Ganguly, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, this matter has been heard at length at the admission stage itself and the controversy raised in this writ petition is decided by the following judgment.

2. The question which falls for decision in this case is whether the appropriate Government, while acting in exercise of the statutory power of review under section 25-0(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act), can, without hearing the parties, pass an order reversing its earlier decision which was passed, after hearing the parties, under section 25-0(2) of the I.D. Act.

3. In the instant case the grievances of the petitioners are that while passing the order dated 29.7.1999 under section 25-0(2) of the I.D. Act respondent no.2 rejected the application filed by respondent no.6 (hereinafter called the respondent Company) for closing its H.D.P. Unit and this oder was passed upon hearing the parties. In passing the said order, respondent no.2 came to the conclusion that the respondent Company could not substantiate its case for closing down its H.D.P. Unit. Thereafter the Managing Director of the said Company filed an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 25-0 of the said Act for review of the previous order dated 29.7.1999. This time, respondent no.2 did not hear either the workers or the Management and, on review, reversed the earlier order and granted permission to respondent Company to" close the H.D.P. Unit of the respondent Company.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following points :

(i) Even though the provisions of Section 25-0(5) of the said Act enable the appropriate authority to review its previous order under Sub-section (2) of Section 25-0 of the I.D.Act, such power must be exercised in a manner which is consistent with the principles of natural justice.

(ii) Even though the provision of giving a hearing is not stated in so many words under section 25-0(5) of the said Act, the requirement to follow the principles of natural justice must be read into it having regard to the nature of the power to be exercised by way of review, the interest of parties and the interest of industrial peace before a completely new order can be passed by the authority.

(iii) Therefore, in passing the order under review, all the requirements which are prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 25-0 of the said Act must be followed.

(iv) The instant order of review purporting to grant permission to the said respondent Company to close its H.D.P. Unit directly affects the livelihood of the petitioners. This amounts to affecting the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right can only be affected on the basis of a procedure which must be just, fair and reasonable.

(v) Such just, fair and reasonable procedure demands that the authority must act in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel for both respondent no. 6 Company and the State in this case spoke in one voice. Their principal contentions are :

(i) There is no requirement of hearing under sub-section (5) of section 25-O of the I.D.Act. As such the impugned order has been rightly passed without hearing either of the parties.

(ii) In the facts of this case no hearing is necessary as the order dated 29.7.1999 was reversed by respondent no.2 on the basis of facts which are all verified and there is no scope for the petitioners to controvert those facts.

(iii) The impugned order dated 8.10.1999 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners.

6. In order to appreciate these points, few facts which are material are noted below :

7. The respondent Company, it is asserted, was incorporated on 20th January, 1920 and at that time it had, only a Hot Deep Plant (H.D.P.) and it used to produce tin plates and adopted the said Hot Deep continuing process till after 1970. Thereafter in 1970 a new plant, namely E.T.P. was commissioned for the purpose of producing tin pl