The Tribunal's decision to grant permission for closure was justified based on the substantial losses suffered by the petitioner-company and the lack of chance for revival. The Tribunal's direction to pay full wages to the workmen exceeded its jurisdiction as it related back to the date specified by the petitioner-company for closure.

Per VINEY MITTAL, J.

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions being W.P. No. 1892/2005(s) and W.P. No. 2612/2005(s). As a matter of fact, both these writ petitions are cross petitions challenging the award dated June 20, 2005 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tribunal, Indore (Hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Whereas W.P. No. 1892/2005(s) has been filed by the company Hind Syntex Limited, other Writ Petition W.P. No. 2612/2005(s) has been filed by the workers-union-Dewas Mazdoor Sangh. For the sake of convenience, henceforth the management company Hind Syntex Ltd. would be referred as petitioner-company, whereas Dewas Mazdoor Sangh would be referred as workers-union.

Facts

2. The petitioner-company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is having an industrial undertaking at village Birgod, Tehsil Tonkkhurd, District Dewas. The said industrial unit was engaged in manufacture of synthetic blended yam. According to the petitioner-company, it had commenced the industrial operations in the said undertaking in the year 1983 and had made substantial profits up to the year 1997. However, thereafter there was a drop in the demand of its product. It has also been claimed that the government policies also became adverse and there was a shortage of electricity. Non-co-operation of the workmen of the industrial undertaking has also been alleged. On account of the aforesaid reasons, it is claimed by the petitioner-company, that it started running in losses and for the period 1998 till 2003, the accumulated losses amounted to Rs. 17.56 crores.

3. In these circumstances, it is claimed by the petitioner-company, that left with no other alternative, it applied to the State Government through an application dated December 11, 2003, filed under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act), seeking a permission to close down the industrial undertaking run by petitioner company. As required under sub-section (1) of Section 25-O of the Act, the intended date of closure was given as March 15,2004 in the said application i.e. beyond a period of 90 days, from the date of filing the application. It appears that the aforesaid application was taken into consideration by the State Government. The pleas of the petitioner company, as well as of the workers-union, were considered. An order dated "February 7, 2004 was passed, whereby the State Government opined that the matter be resolved through negotiations and discussions between the petitioner- company and workers-union, through the intervention of the Labour Commissioner. Vide the said order dated February 7, 2004, the State Government ordered that "keeping in view the aforesaid option, the application filed by the applicant seeking permission for closure is not being considered." A copy of the order dated February 7, 2004 passed by the State Government has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present petition.

4. The petitioner-company maintains, that although under Section 25-O of the Act, on filing of the application seeking permission to close the industrial undertaking, the State Government had only a power, either to grant the aforesaid permission or refuse the same, and in absence of passing the said order, after expiry of 60 days of filing the application, such a permission to close the undertaking shall be deemed to have been granted, still with a view to seek a clarification, in order to avoid any further complications, the petitioner-company filed an application for review of the order dated February 7, 2004. In the said review application filed by the petitioner-company, the State Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication; vide a reference order dated June 15, 2004.

5. In the reference proceedings before the Tribunal, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner-company, which was contested by the workers-union, by filing a reply thereto. The parties also led their evi