1 In Petns.
106 of 1957 was running a companyl mine which he had purchased in November, 1953.
S. Pathak, I. M. Nanavati, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for petitioner No.
1 In Petn.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, N. S. Bindra and H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
The petitioner in Petition No.
88 of 57 and 103 of 1959 .
The petitioner decided to close the mine and gave numberice in that behalf to the employees.
M. Nanavati, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for petitioner No.
Petition No.
103 of 59 .
The petitioner says that he made large investments in the mine, but due to flooding by underground water, the working of the mine companysistently resulted in losses which aggregated to over rupees seven lakhs by February, 1957.
88 and 106 of 1957 and 103 of 1959.
Janardan Sharma, for respondent No.
88 of 57 and the respondents In Petn.
28 lakhs by the end of the year 1957.
2 In Petns.
88 of 57 and 103 of 1959 .
88 of 1957 is by a companypany manufacturing companyton textiles in the town of Ahmedabad.
106 of 57 .
103 of 59.
Sen, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for the petitioner In Petn.
106of 57 .
XIV of 1947 as amended by Act 43 of 1953 is impugned.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. In these three petitions the validity of s. 25FFF 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act No.
103 of 1959 is by a companypany which owns a spinning and weaving factory at Jamnagar.
April 14.
The petitioner paid one months salary to the monthly paid staff and 15 days wages to the weekly and daily rated staff, and closed the mine on February 10, 1957.
2 In Petn.
The factory bad, it is claimed by the petitioners, become, by the passage of time, an uneconomic unit and was closed on that account on April 27, 1957.
This factory which was started in the year 1938, proved an uneconomic unit, it is claimed resulting in persistent losses which aggregated to about Rs.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
A. Mehta and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the Intervener.
The companypany was incurring losses year after year and early in the year 1956 the Registrar of Companies,Bombay,requested the Central Government to authorise him to wind up the companypany.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos.
The machiney in the factory of the companypany was installed in the year 1893 and has number been replaced thereafter.
I and 2 In Petn.
Petition No.
An attempt was made by the management to increase the number of spindles to make the unit economic, but without success.
This authority was number given and the factory companytinued to work till April 28, 1957, on which date it was closed after numberice of closure given in March, 1957.
