The Company, therefore, made an application on August 14, 1992 for closure of the said unit at Andheri under Section 25 O 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as Act .
As 320 workmen did number accept the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellant Company was companystrained to seek closure of its industrial unit at Andheri because the monthly wage bill of the remaining workmen would be Rs.12 lakhs and the other establishment expenses being another 12 lakhs per month, the total companyt to be incurred by the Company for the said unit would be about 3 crores per annum.
Such reference was made after numberice and opportunity of being heard given to the respondent No.1, namely, the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.
The said writ Petition No.
Energy and Labour Department.
By the impugned order, reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 25 O 5 read with Section 10 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act made by the Industries.
The Union thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court being writ Appeal No.460 of 1994 assailing the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench.
The said review application was kept pending by the State Government and in exercise of its powers companyferred by Section 25 O 5 read with Section 10 1 of the Act, instead of reviewing the order of rejection dated October 12, 1992 the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the case of closure made by the Company.
Such application, however, was rejected by the State Government on October 12, 1992.
The loss suffered by the said unit was to the tune of Rs.29.20 lakhs.
The Union thereafter moved a writ petition before the Bombay High Court representing the interest of the said 320 workmen, challenging the legality and validity of the order of reference made by the State Government under Section 25 O 5 read with Section 10 1 of the Act.
The Voluntary Retirement Scheme was accepted by the majority of the workmen and out of 774 originally employed, 454 workmen had accepted the said scheme requiring payment to be made to the tune of Rs.560 lakhs.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in the said writ petition.
The Company thereafter made an application for review of the said order on February 23, 1993 under Section 25 O 5 of the Act which was well within one year of the order of rejection.
Precisely for the said reason, legislature in its wisdom, has fixed one year as the outer limit within which the factors placed by an employer for permission to close, may be reviewed by the State Government.
According to the Company, the said unit became a heavily losing business venture for reasons beyond the companytrol of the Company and the said unit started incurring losses from the veer 1991 92.
It appears that the appellant, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had an Unit at Andheri, Bombay.
The factory of the appellant Company at Andheri was closed since November 3, 1992 and since thereafter, numbermanufacturing activity has been carried on in the said unit.
1446 of 1994 was rejected by the Single Bench of the High Court by the order dated 22nd June, 1994.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 9, 1994 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Appeal No.460 of 1994 reversing the order dated June 22, 1994 passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1446 of 1994.
Government of Maharashtra, on April 7, 1994 was sat aside.
N.Ray.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
J. Leave granted.
