The court found that the provisions of Section 6-W and Section 25-O imposed excessive and unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to carry on a business, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) IN this and the companion Writ Petition Nos. 8214 of 1986,3294 of 1985,13015 of 1984 and 9948 of 1983 the employers feel aggrieved by the refusal of the State of Uttar Pradesh to accord them permission to close down either undertakings or units.

( 2 ) IN this petition the material averments of Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. , a public limited company, are these. Amongst other businesses, the company has an establishment of Jay Shree tyres and Rubber Products at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Allahabad Unit ). Each business run by the company is a separate establishment having a separate finance, management and control. The Allahabad unit has been suffering huge losses year after year. It has suffered losses from its very inception. In 1976-77 its loss was of Rs. 1. 68 lacs, in 1977-78 the loss was of Rs. 49. 98 lacs, in 1978-79 the loss was of Rs. 44. 37 lacs, in 1979-80 the loss was Rs. 92. 08 lacs, in 1980-81 the loss was of Rs 114. 5 lacs, in 1981-82 the loss was of Rs. 110. 15 lacs, in 1982-83 the loss was of Rs. 109. 65 lacs, in 1983-84 the loss was of Rs. 133. 55 lacs, in 1984-85 the loss was of Rs. 164. 25 lacs and in 1985-86 the loss was of Rs. 195. 91 lacs. The total loss suffered is of Rs. 1,022. 17 lacs. On September 29,1986, the State Government re jected the application, dated August 4, 1986 seeking permission to close down the unit. Upon an application for review made by the petitioner, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication to a Tribunal and on February 26, 1987, the Tribunal passed an award maintaining the order of the State Government.

( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 8214 of 1986 M/s Amitabh Textile Mills Limited is the petitioner. The material averments are these. The petitioner has been suffering heavy losses for last few years and is one of the sick units in textile in Northern India. There is no possibility of improvement in the foreseeable future. On August 7, 1985, the State Government declined to grant the permission to close down its factory. The prayer made by the petitioner for review of its order was not acceded to by the State Government. However, it made a reference to a Tribunal which on March 6, 1986 passed an award maintaining the order of the State Government.

( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1985, Modi Textiles Ltd. , is the petitioner. In Writ Petition No. 13015 of 1984, Modi Sintex Ltd. is the petitioner and in Writ Petition No. 9948 of 1983 Modi spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. is the petitioner. In these petitions the averments are somewhat common. They are that their units have been suffering losses. The workers have been on strike for considerable period and, therefore, the units are no more viable.

( 5 ) IN the forefront, in these petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 6-W of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act), which is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) has been questioned.

( 6 ) IN the U. P. Act, Section 6-W has been Inserted by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1983. In the Central Act, section 25-O has been inserted by Section 14 of Act No. 46 of 1982. Section 14-B, a penal provision, which is in pan materia with Section 25-R of the Central Act was also inserted in the u. P. Act by Act No. 26 of 1983.

( 7 ) IN the Central Act Chapter IV-B, which contains Sections 25-K to 25-S, was inserted by Act 32 of 1976. The constitutional validity of Section 25-O, as it then stood, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Excel Wear and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1978-II-LLJ-527 ). The Supreme Court declared that Section 25-O of the Central Act as a whole and Section 25-R, in so far as it provided for punishment for the infraction of Section 25-O, were constitutionally bad and invalid for violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

( 8 ) THE sheet-anchor of the petit