N NARASIMHALU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against notices issued by the respondents, that is, the Commissioner of Industries, A.P. Hyderabad and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Srikakulam in closing down the Bristle and Mattress Fibre Industry, Baruva with effect from 29/02/1984. The petitioners want a declaration that the closure is illegal and also ask for a direction to the respondents to reopen the industry forthwith. The respondents have issued a notice, dated 25/02/1984 to all the petitioners in the said Unit saying that in as much as the said industry at Baruva has been running at loss since its inception, the Commissioner of Industries has ordered it to be closed with effect from 29/02/1984 and that they proposed to do so and hence, their services are not needed w.e.f. 29/02/1984 evening onwards. Again on 29/02/1984, a notice was issued with reference to the earlier notice stating that the industry is closed down w.e.f. 29/02/1984 evening onwards. The notice further stated that for the amounts due to them, action will be taken in consultation with the Labour Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners that in as much as the respondents have not complied with the requirements of Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947, the closure is illegal and hence, the relief sought for by them, has to be acceded to. It is urged by Sri N. Rammohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the consequences that flow from non-compliance with Section 25-F, must also follow from the non-compliance of Section 25-FFF. In other words, the contention is that in as much as, the Court would direct reinstatement of workmen with all the anciliary benefits in case of violation of Section 25-F, a direction declaring closure as illegal should also follow from the non-compliance with the requirements of Section 25-FFF of the Act. I do not find it possible to agree. Sub-section (1) of Section 25-FFF in so far as it is relevant for the purpose, reads as under :

(3.) To notice the contrast in the language employed in this sub-section with the language of Section 25-F, it would be appropriate to set out S. 25-F as well. It reads thus :