Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Jay Shree Tea Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Industrial Tribunal-I And Ors. on 28 January, 2004 cites

Excel Wear Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1978

Excel Wear case recognizes that in the interest of general public it is possible to restrict, for a limited period of time, the right to close down the business. The amended Section 25O lays down guidelines which are to be followed by the appropriate Government in granting or refusing permission to close down. It has to have regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer. However, merely because the reasons are genuine and adequate cannot mean that permission to close must necessarily be granted. There could be cases where the interest of general public may require that no closure takes place. Undoubtedly where the reasons are genuine and adequate the Interest of the general public must be of a compelling or overriding nature. Thus, by way of examples, if an industry is engaged in manufacturing of items required for defence of the country, then even though the reasons may be genuine and adequate it may become necessary. In the interest of the general public, not to allow closure for some time. Similarly, if the establishment is manufacturing vaccines or drugs for an epidemic which is prevalent at that particular point of time, interest of the general public may require not to allow closure for a particular period of time. We must also take a note of Sub-section (7) of the amended Section 25O which provides that if there are exceptional circumstances or accident in the undertaking or death of the employer or the like, the appropriate Government could direct that provisions of Sub-section (1) would not apply to such an undertaking. This, in our view, makes it clear that the amended Section 25O recognizes that if there are exceptional circumstances then there could be no compulsion to continue to run the business. It must however, be clarified that this Court is not laying down that some difficulty or financial hardship in running the establishment would be sufficient. The employer must show that it has become impossible to continue to run the establishment. Looked at from this point of view, in our view, the restrictions imposed are reasonable and in the interest of the general public,"
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 98 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Orissa Textile And Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 17 January, 2002

19. The Supreme Court in Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. (supra) held in para 18, that merely because the reasons are genuine and adequate does mean that permission to close must necessarily be granted. There could be cases where the Interest of general public may require that no closure takes place. Where the reasons are genuine and adequate, the interest of general public must be of compelling and overriding nature. Some difficulty and financial hardships in running establishments would not be sufficient to grant permission to closure. The employer must show that it has become impossible to run the establishment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 83 - Full Document
1