IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 1998 Date of decision:13.07.2009 Kulbushan Sharma and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of the Government of Haryana granting permission for closure of the factory by its order dated 24.07.1998. The workman challenged this order as one passed without taking into account the genuineness and adequacy of reasons. 2. In the application given by the Company for closure on 20.05.1998, the management had given its reasons setting out, inter alia, that there were no orders pending and the demand for supply of Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 1998 - 2 - materials were coming but materials were not available and they were not able to entertain the same, for the reason that the bank accounts had been frozen. The industry was unable to compete in the competitive steel market. The revival package could not be completed by the operating agency of BIFR, since there was an order of stay of High Court, which was operating. There were several other reasons as well. In the annexure, the financial position of the Company had also been disclosed which showed the accumulated losses to be in the range of 2651.33 lakhs. The further details which were available in the letter of request of the Company to the Government seeking for closure of the Company were the audited balance-sheets with yearwise losses suffered by the Company since 1993-94 , as under :- Year Interest Total Loss (Rupees in Lakhs) ________ ______________ ________ 1993-94 202.56 287.06 1994-95 242.33 375.29 1995-96 309.31 341.83 1996-97 365.64 541.20 3. The Government had not issued any specific order of permission and by operation of Section 25-O(3), since the Government had not granted permission within a period of 60 days from the date when the petition was made, there occasioned a deemed permission. The workers, however, were not prepared to allow the deemed permission to take effect and they had petitioned to the Government namely the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Labour Department, Chandigarh, on 23.06.1998 and still later on 29.07.1998 another representation pointing out to the fact that the losses had been Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 1998 - 3 - occasioned only on account of misappropriation by higher officials in the Company and the Company was still viable for its operations. The later representation dated 29.07.1998 purported to be an application filed under Section 25-O(5) seeking for reconsideration/review of the deemed order of closure on the application for permission sought by the Company. 4. The Government responded to that application by its order dated 24.07.1998 which is impeached in the writ petition. While passing the order, the objection of the Union has been specifically adverted to. The order recites the fact that the Company was a subsidiary of HSIDC and as per the report dated 20.08.1998, two Civil Writ Petitions No.5463 of 1996 and 3544 of 1998, one PIL and another at the instance of some other workman seeking for intervention through order of this Court for an enquiry into the affairs of the Company and against the decision of the Company to close had been dismissed by this Court. It also took note of the fact that the workmen's union itself had not denied the financial losses in the undertaking and finding that there were sufficient grounds to allow the application of the management, it accorded of the permission for closure, subject to the payment of legal dues to the affected workers, as per the provisions of Section 25-O (8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in public interest. 5. Mr. Nalwa, counsel appearing for the respondent, points out to the provisions of Section 25-O(2), which reads as follows:- “Where an application for permission has been made under sub-section (1), the appropriate Government, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 1998 - 4 - reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen and the persons interested in such closure may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, the interests of the general public and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen.” The relevant point for consideration shall only be the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer. According to him, the genuineness of the reasons could not be disputed in view of the audited statement that the Company was running at loss for more than four years prior to the application seeking for permission. The representation on behalf of the management also revealed that the Company had gone by BIFR and even the operating agency could not revive the affairs of the Company on account of an order of stay from the High Court. The power of the Court to examine the request for closure itself was limited to what was confined under Section 25-O(2) and the order vouched for consideration of the relevant matters. Obviously, there could be no further probing enquiry into the justification for the management to seek for closure and the permission of the State to accord such permission. The impugned order considered what were relevant and I find no scope for interference. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also points out that out of 317 persons, who were admitted to have been in the rolls of employment as workman, as revealed from the representation of the management to the Government seeking for permission for closure, Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 1998 - 5 - 306 of them have already received compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act and that fact has also been admitted in the statement filed on behalf of the State-respondents 1 and 2. Although, there is no data available about 11 other persons, no particulars had been submitted to the Court at the instance of the petitioners. The right of the workman to obtain compensation for closure as provided by law has already been protected by the impugned order itself. 8. There is also a prayer in the writ petition for their absorption in some other Government units. The claim by the workmen is based on the instructions that is available through the memorandum issued by the Joint Secretary, General Administration for Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, under reference No.23/10/88-2GSIII, dated 13.07.1988. It states that it shall be the endeavour of the Government, in case the employees are retrenched under due process of law, efforts should be made to absorb them in other organizations and Government agencies, where suitable vacancies exist. This instruction is in the nature of a guideline for larger public interest and it cannot be said to create any vested legal right in workmen to contend that whenever there is a closure of a Government factory, the persons who are retrenched shall be re- employed as well. That fact has been specifically adverted in paragraph 16 of the written statement which says that it was not possible to re-deploy them elsewhere and that if ever there was a case for restarting the unit in the near future, the retrenched workers shall have the benefit under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for preferential Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 1998 - 6 - treatment in the matter of re-employment. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to accord a direction for all the retrenched workers to be re-deployed in any other Government unit or organization. 9. The writ petition therefore ought to fail and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.07.2009 sanjeev