:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6312 OF 1996 APS Star Industries Ltd. and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Star Textile Engineering Employees Union and ors. ..Respondents Ms. Sanika Deshpande i/by M/s. Haresh Mehta and Co. for petitioners. Ms. Jane Cox for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 12, 2008. Date : February 12, 2008. Date : February 12, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. When this petition was admitted, for the detailed reasons set out in the order dated 16/1/1997 passed by the Division Bench, the prayer for interim relief was rejected. Reference was also made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Chemical & Dyes Trading Employees’ Union vs. S.G. Chemicals & Dyes Trading Ltd. and anr. [(1986) 2 SC 624] and it was noted that closure of an undertaking effected contrary to the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with consequent non-payment of wages as per the existing settlement to workmen who continue to be in service due to :2: illegality of closure amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. 2. By the impugned order dated 27/11/1996 the Industrial Court partly allowed the application for interim relief at Exh.U-2 and directed the petitioner-company to pay the workmen their monthly wages after adjustment of the terminal dues already paid. The Industrial Court in the impugned order noted that the company mainly justified in resorting to the action of closure on account of the continued financial crunch, but prima facie it was made out a case by the Union that the closure was in breach of the provisions of Section 25-O of the I.D. Act in as much as no permission, as required under Section 25N of the said Act was obtained when the company employed more than 100 workmen. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Complaint (ULP) No.201 of 1996 in which the impugned order came to be passed has been dismissed and, therefore, nothing survives even in the :3: impugned order. Ms. Jane Cox the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that an application for restoration of the said complaint has already been submitted before the Industrial Court and the same is pending. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality on its prima facie conclusions that the closure effected or sought to be effected as per the notice dated 1/3/1996 was in breach of the provisions of Sections 25-O and 25N of the I.D. Act and at no point of time till the impugned order was passed, the petitioners could place on record before the Industrial Court a copy of the permission obtained from the State Government. 5. Hence, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order under the supervisory powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)