JUDGMENT Admittedly, the petitioner is the Labour Union of the workmen of the erstwhile company M/s Hope Textiles Ltd. An application is said to have been filed by one Shri S.S. Jadhav, President of the Indore Mill Mazdoor Sangh, to the Secretary of the State Govt. Labour Department, for action against Mis Hope Textiles Ltd. for contravention of section 25M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Without going into any detail of that prosecution or sanction for such a prosecution, suffice it to say for the purpose of this writ petition that by an order dated 2.2.1990, the Labour Commissioner of the State Govt. exercising the delegated authority, passed an order paragraph 4 of which ran as follows: ^^4@vkSj pqafd ys &vkWQ dh vuqefr vekU; gksus ds mijkUr Hkh dEiuh }kjk ys&vkWQ 25 tuojh 1990 rd fujUrfjr j[kk x;k gSaaA^^ A copy of that order has been marked as Annexure P-1 to this writ petition. On receipt thereof, the petitioner submits, an application as filed before the Lahour Commissioner stating therein that from para 4 in parenthesis, an impression was gathered that the layoff or closure was treated as 'layoff' by the State Government only upto the period ending 25.1.1990. As a result, it was requested by the petitioner that further order or direction he passed by the appropriate authority holding the period of layoff to have continued even after 25.1.1990. Nothing was heard from the competent authority in that regard. This impelled the petitioner Union to send a reminder by letter dated 1.10.90, copy whereof has been marked as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition saying that an order be clearly passed to the effect that the layoff continued in relation to the company in question, namely M/s Hope Textiles Ltd., even after 25.1.90. Since nothing has been heard in that regard by the petitioner, the petitioner has moved this Court for an appropriate writ commanding the respondent concerned to pass an order of layoff continuing even after 25.1.1990. We are, however, unable to accede to this request or to grant this relief to the petitioner. Since nothing has been heard in that regard by the petitioner, the petitioner has moved this Court for an appropriate writ commanding the respondent concerned to pass an order of layoff continuing even after 25.1.1990. We are, however, unable to accede to this request or to grant this relief to the petitioner. All that we can do in the circumstances, is to leave it to the competent respondents or their delegate/ s to apply his/their mind to the facts of the case in order to examine as to whether it can still he said a case of layoff or a case of closure and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.