Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In t his writ application the petitioners prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the appropriate Government, herein the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, having granted permission for closure of the Lapso Kyanite mines of the petitioners and assigning reasons, imposing condition for such closure is beyond the scope of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said act" ). In other words the petitioners sought for a declaration that the petitioners having closed down the mines, the condition imposed by the appropriate Government to adjust/absorb 38 workmen elsewhere is beyond the scope of Sec.25 of the said Act. Such an order communicated to the petitioners on 14th July, 1995 under section 25-R of the said Act is Annexure 9 to the writ application. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a Government of India undertaking carrying on mines business. The petitioners have various mines. The petitioners case is that over the past 65 years in Lapso kyanite Mine being naturally purified highgrade floating kyanite is lying scattered over the foothill of the area. The mining of institu kyanite occurring lensoids in the hills are also undertaken. Kyanite of the petitioners mine was of highest grade available in India and abroad. However, last decade the reserves of floating kyanite has practically exhausted as the main fields have been mined as a result the quality of the kyanite degraded. The mining was then restricted to hills and the approximate reserves of insite kyanite in hills is estimated at 18,000 M. Tonnes only. This reserves consisted of poor-graded kyanite which do not have much demand. Cost effective substitutes are being used in large quantities by refractory manufacturers. According to petitioners the good grade kyanite became no longer available in the country. The petitioners further case was that as a result of above reasons Lapso Kyanite mines of petitioner No.1 was incurring losses over the years and the project was no more commercially viable. The company was, therefore, left with no other option but to go for closure of Lapso kyanite Mines. The petitioners further case was that as a result of above reasons Lapso Kyanite mines of petitioner No.1 was incurring losses over the years and the project was no more commercially viable. The company was, therefore, left with no other option but to go for closure of Lapso kyanite Mines. The petitioners company applied to the Secretary, government of India, Ministry of Labour, New delhi, on 20th August, 1993 under Sec.25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for proposing to close down the lapso Kyanite Mines at Galudih, Dis-trict-Singhbhum West with effect from the close of the working hours from 30th November, 1993. In the said application it was also mentioned that in the roll there were 738 workmen in the mines. The voluntary retirement scheme was introduced in the company with effect from 1-4-1993 and most of the workmen at Lapso Kyanite Mines had opted for voluntary retirement and left the job after receiving necessary payment under the voluntary retirement scheme. As on date there were only 38 workmen at Lapso Kyanite Mine whose services will be terminated on account of closure of the mine. It was also mentioned in the said application that in the event of approval for closure being granted, the workmen shall be entitled to compensation as specified in that section. On receiving such application the communication was made from the ministry of Labour, Government of india, fixing 27-9-1993 for a meeting in the chamber of Ministry of Labour. Concerned workmen, Management and representative of the Union were requested to attend the same. The Ministry of Labour issued an order communicated by Telex message to the chairman-cum-Managing Director of petitioners company that application dated 21st August, 1993 received in the ministry seeking permission of the government for closing down the lapso Kyanite Mine was considered and after hearing the parties permission of the Government was granted for closure of the Industrial Establishment with effect from 30-11-1993, subject to condition that 38 workmen in the establishment will be adjusted in the other units of the petitjoners-company. The said order of the Central Government granting closure of the establishment with the aforementioned condition is impugned in this writ application. 3. The said order of the Central Government granting closure of the establishment with the aforementioned condition is impugned in this writ application. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents Union of India stating, inter alia, that the Central Government was fully justified in imposing condition for adjustment of 38 workmen in other units of the petitioners-company while granting permission for the closure of the Industrial Establishment. It was further stated that during the hearing of the application held by the Labour and employment Advisor as required under sub-section (2) of Sec.25 of the said act the management made a commitment to absorb 38 workmen in other units if the Government issued any order to that effect. As the commitment made by the Management was taken by the Government as one of the factors justifying the genuineness and adequacy of the request, a mention of this commitment was made in the Governments communication granting permission for closure. 4. A separate counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, lapso Kyanite Mines Workers Union. The case of the said respondent was that when the petitioners-company intended to close down Lapso Kyanite Mines, they issued notice dated 6-2-1993 to all the workmen of Lapso Kyanite Mines to give their option by filing applications for their transfer to other units of the company. Another notice dated 4th march, 1993 was issued by the petitioners-company under the signature of Assistant Personnel Officer, lapso Kyanite Mines extending the date of option to the workmen upto 5-3-1993 to file their applications for transfer to other units of the Lapso Kyanite Mines. Copies of these notices are Annexures a and B to the counter affidavit. The respondents further case was that the management introduced a voluntary retirement scheme and as many as 700 workmen out of 738 accepted their retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme and 38 workmen were left. The rest 38 workmen gave their option in writing for their transfer to any other units of the company. The respondents further case was that the management introduced a voluntary retirement scheme and as many as 700 workmen out of 738 accepted their retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme and 38 workmen were left. The rest 38 workmen gave their option in writing for their transfer to any other units of the company. It was further stated that during the course of hearing an application filed by the petitioners under Sec.25 of the said Act the petitioners categorically agreed to provide employment to 38 workmen concerned in the case and accepted the offer and agreement of the employer for providing employment to 38 workmen, the Government was pleased to grant permission to the employer to declare closure of the units. The said respondents further made various statement justifying the order of the Government imposing condition while declaring closure of the petitioners" mine. 5. Mr. P. K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners company assailed the impugned order imposing condition for employment of 38 workmen while declaring closure of the Lapse Kyanite Mine as being illegal and against the various provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel firstly submitted that Sec.25 of the said Act is self contained provision and, therefore, imposing condition by the appropriate Government for adjustment of workmen was unwarranted, illegal and beyond the power under the act. Learned Counsel further submitted that when an application was made under Sec.25 of the said Act for closing down the said mines in the prescribed form for the reason that it was not economically viable and the government after careful considering all aspect of the matter and hearing the management and the union passed under Sec.25 for closing down the mine and there is no question of putting a rider for re-employment of 38 workmen. Mr. P. K. Sinha, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the various documents annexed with the writ application and submitted that from the date of filing of the application the petitioners-company always expressed its inability to give employment to those 38 workmen. 6. Mr. Babban Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-workmen firstly, took a preliminary point that the instant writ application has become infructuous. Learned counsel submitted that only remedy available to the petitioners was to make an application before the government for reviewing of the order. 6. Mr. Babban Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-workmen firstly, took a preliminary point that the instant writ application has become infructuous. Learned counsel submitted that only remedy available to the petitioners was to make an application before the government for reviewing of the order. Learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon a decision of the supreme Court in the case of Vazir glass Works Limited V/s. Maharashtra general Kamgar Union and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1282 . Mr. Babban Lal further submitted that when the petitioners-company before making an application for the closure of the mines gave option to the employees to transfer them to another unit then the petitioners company cannot be allowed to back out and challenges the condition put in the order of the Government while granting permission for the closure of the mines. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the supreme Court in the case of G. S. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees union V/s. S. G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 624 . The learned J. C. to s. C. Central Government also made an application supporting the order of the government which is impugned in this writ application. Learned counsel submitted that Government can impose condition while passing the order under section 25 of the said Act. Learned counsel put reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited and another V/s. The union of India through the Secretary, ministry of Labour, New Delhi and others reported in (1996) 2 PLJR 520 ; 1997 (1)BLJ 334 . 7. Before appreciating the submission made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties it is necessary to look into the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Before appreciating the submission made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties it is necessary to look into the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sec.25 of the said Act reads as under -Section 25-O.- (1) An employer who intends to close down an undertaking of an industrial establishment to which the chapter applies shall in the prescribed manner, apply, for prior permission at least ninety days before the date on which the intended closure is to become effective, to the appropriate Government stating clearly the reasons for the intended closure of the undertaking and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the representatives of the workmen in the prescribed manner: provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to an undertaking set up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or for other construction work. (2) 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 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. (3) Where an application has been made under sub-section (1) and the appropriate Government does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. (4) An order of the appropriate government granting or refusing to grant permission shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) be final and binding on all the parties and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order. (4) An order of the appropriate government granting or refusing to grant permission shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) be final and binding on all the parties and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order. (5) The appropriate Government may either on its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under subsection (2) or refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication: provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this subsection, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference. (6) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made within the period specified therein or where the permission for closure has been refused the closure of undertaking shall be deemed to be illegal from the date of closure and the workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if the undertaking had not been closed down. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the undertaking or death of employer or the like it is necessary so to do, by order, direct that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in relation to such undertaking for such period as may be specified in the order. (8) Where an undertaking is permitted to be closed down under sub-section (2) or where permission for closure is deemed to be granted under sub-section (3) every workman who is employed in that undertaking immediately before the date of application for permission under this section shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. " 8. Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act is part of Chapter V-B of the industrial Disputes Act. Chapter V-B was inserted in the Industrial Disputes act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 which contains sections 25-K to 25-S. Subsequently, section 25-O as originally enacted was substituted by Sec.14 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982. " 8. Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act is part of Chapter V-B of the industrial Disputes Act. Chapter V-B was inserted in the Industrial Disputes act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 which contains sections 25-K to 25-S. Subsequently, section 25-O as originally enacted was substituted by Sec.14 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982. Some more amendment was brought by Amendment Act of 1984 which came into force with effect from 18th August, 1984. 9. From bare perusal of the aforesaid Sec.25-O it appears that sub-section (1) lays down the procedure of closing down an undertaking and according to which an employer who intends to close down an undertaking of an Industrial Establishment shall have to apply for prior permission by the appropriate Government under sub-section (2) of Sec.25-O the appropriate government is to make such enquiry as it thinks fit after giving reasonable opportunity to the employer, the workmen and the person interested in such closure. The appropriate Government while making such enquiry shall have to consider other relevant factors and shall have to pass a reasoned order in writing of granting or refusing to grant of such permission. Sub-section (3) provides that if the appropriate Government does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made then it shall be deemed that permission has been granted for the closure of the industry. Sub-section (6) provides that if the permission is refused by the Government then the closure of the undertaking shall be deemed to be illegal and the workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under the law. Sub-section (8)of Sec.25-O provides the consequences of the closure of the undertaking. According to this if an undertaking is permitted to be closed down under sub-section (2) or where the permission for closure is deemed to be granted under sub-section (3) then every workman who is employed in that undertaking immediately before the date of application for permission shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service, or any part thereof in excess of six months. Sec.25-O does not provide that in case of closure of the factory with the permission of the appropriate Government under sub-section (2) the employer has to give employment to its employees in any other undertakings. 10. As stated above, Sec.25-O features in Chapter V-B of the Act which contains Sections 25-K to 25-S. The provision of Sec.25-O applies to an Industrial Establishment in which not less than one hundred workmen are employed. For better appreciation Sec.25-K is reproduced hereinbelow: "section 25-K - Application of Chapter V-B.- (1) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to an industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than (one) hundred workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months. (2) If a question arises whether an industrial establishment is of a seasonal character or whether work is performed therein only intermittently, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. " 11. Section 25-N lays down similar provision for the retrenchment of workmen. According to this section no workmen employed in any industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not less than one year shall be retrenched until prior permission of the appropriate Government has been obtained on an application made in this behalf. The provision of Sec.25-N lays down the procedure for filing an application for permission and there is a provision for payment of compensation also in case of retrenchment of workmen with the prior permission of the appropriate Government.11a. Chapter V-A of the said Act lays down a provision of lay off and retrenchment. This chapter contains sections 25-A to Sec.25-J. From reading of provision of Sec.25-B of the said Act I am of the view that Sec.25-O is a self contained provision and once permission is granted by the appropriate Government under sub-section (2) then the workmen are entitled to compensation under sub-section (8)and not re-employment. Once the reasons for closure is accepted by the government then there is no question of putting a rider for re-employment in the order granting permission. 12. Mr. Once the reasons for closure is accepted by the government then there is no question of putting a rider for re-employment in the order granting permission. 12. Mr. Baban Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents heavily relied upon a decision by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. and another v. The Union of India through the secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and others reported in 19% (2) PLJR 520. With due respect the ratio of that decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case the petitioner Hindalco Industrial Limited obtained a minor lease under the provision of Mines and minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and was carrying mining activity in the non-forest area and also extended its mining activity to the forest area after obtaining permission of the Forest Department. However, the divisional Forest Officer ordered the closure of the minor operation with immediate effect and the petitioner was directed to stop its mining operation forthwith which was protested by the petitioner. It resulted in the closure of the mining operation and a notice of closure under Sec.25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act was sent to the concerned authorities. However, by way of abundant caution the petitioner applied under Sec.25-O for permission to effect closure. The Central Government ordered for the closure of the mining activity subject to the following conditions - (i) The closure would be as per provisions of Sec.25 (O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ; (ii) Compensation and notice salary would have to be paid to the workmen as per provisions contained under Sec.25 (0) (8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (iii) Whenever a fresh permission is granted to the management for mining in the State of Bihar, the retrenched workmen would be employed as per the provisions contained in Sec.25-H of the Industrial disputes Act. 13. The petitioners challenged the order of the Central Government imposing conditions on various grounds. While deciding the question with regard to validity of the condition imposed by the Central Government this Court held as under - "this takes me to the next submission urged by Mr. Ginwala that if Section 25-O applied, the Central Government could not impose conditions while granting permission under Sec.25-O of the act. While deciding the question with regard to validity of the condition imposed by the Central Government this Court held as under - "this takes me to the next submission urged by Mr. Ginwala that if Section 25-O applied, the Central Government could not impose conditions while granting permission under Sec.25-O of the act. He submitted that three conditions were imposed by the Central Government while granting permission under the aforesaid section, even though the Central government recorded its satisfaction about the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons advanced by the Management. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the conditions mentioned in the order granting permission are no more than the statement of the consequences that must follow in law. The respondents appear to be right in their contention. The first condition mentioned in Annexure-10, the order granting permission to close, is that the closure would be as per the provision of Sec.25-O of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. I have already held earlier that Sec.25-O would apply to the closure in question and, therefore, the so called first condition is nothing but a mere statement of the law. It is not a condition at all. The second condition is that compensation and notice salary would have to be paid to the workmen as per the provision of Sec.25-O (8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . It was not necessary for the Central Government to say so in its order, because where permission is accorded by the central Government for closure of an Undertaking under section 25-O of the Act, necessarily compensation has to be paid in accordance with sub-section (8) of Sec.25-O. The second condition merely states the correct legal position about the liability of the petitioner-Company towards its workmen. The third condition is that Whenever a fresh permission is granted to the management for mining in the State of bihar, the retrenched workmen would be employed as per the provisions contained in Sec.25-H of the Industrial Disputes act. The third condition is also of the same nature as the first two conditions. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that section 25-H would apply only in a case where re-employment is granted in the same establishment. The third condition is also of the same nature as the first two conditions. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that section 25-H would apply only in a case where re-employment is granted in the same establishment. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this question, but it is enough if it is clarified that re-employment has to be granted in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. The third condition does not impose any otfier obligation on the petitioner-Company. Mr. Ginwala faintly argued that a closure does not result in retrenchment, and he sought to argue that the words of Sec.25-FFF and Section 25-F are significantly different. Retrenchment has been defined under Sec.2 (OO) of the Act and the law is now well settled by several decisions of the supreme Court. I need not refer to all of them, but I may only refer to the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (1992)2 SCC 336, Workmen V/s. Minakshi Mills ltd. and another wherein in paragraph 32 of the report the Court has referred to a large number of decisions which have been reiterated in the decision of the Supreme court in State Bank of India V/s. S. Sun-daramoney, (1976) 1 SCC 822 that 2 (OO), means termination by the employer of the service of workmen for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, and those expressly excluded by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the definition. The submission must, therefore, be rejected. " 14. In the instant case, permission was granted by the impugned order (Annexure 3) on the condition that 38 workmen employed in the establishment will have to be adjusted in other units of the petitioners. The condition is not in consonance with the provision of Sec.25-H of the said act which reads as under -Section 25-H - "re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any person, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, given an opportunity (to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and. such retrenched workmen) who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. " 15. such retrenched workmen) who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. " 15. In my opinion, therefore, the only condition which the petitioner was bound to fulfil is to pay compensation as provided under sub-section (8) of section 25-O of the said Act. This Court in Hindalco Industries Limited (supra)has rightly held that the third condition for giving employment was as per the provision of Sec.25-H of the. said act. In the instant case since the condition imposed by the Central government is not in consonance with Section 25-H of the said Act, the same cannot be sustained in law. 16. In the case of S. G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union V/s. The Management reported in (1986) 2 scc 624 a question before the apex court was whether Sec.25-O would be attracted in case of closure of an undertaking having less than hundred workmen if the industrial establishment has more than one undertaking. The matter went to the Supreme Court against the order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint filed by the appellants union under Sec.28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade union and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971, complainant of an unfair labour practice on the part of the company. The apex Court took the view that the word undertaking in the expression "undertaking of an industrial establishment" in Sec.25-O means an undertaking in its ordinary meaning and sense as defined by the apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited (1973 SC 878 ). If an undertaking in its ordinary meaning and sense is a part of an industrial establishment so that both taken together constitute one establishment, Sec.25-O would apply to the closure of an undertaking provided the condition laid down in Sec.25-K is fulfilled. Their Lordships further observed that non-compliance of the requirement of Sec.25-O the closure of the undertaking is to be deemed to be illegal from out of the closure and the workmen entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force. In my view, the decision rendered by the Court is of no help to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In my view, the decision rendered by the Court is of no help to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In Vazir Glass Works Limited V/s. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and another (supra) the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the appropriate government would cease to have jurisdiction to review its order from the application for closure of an industrial unit after expiry of one year from the date of rejection of the application for permission to close. The fact of that case was that the appellant M/s. Vazir glass Works Limited when started entering loss in the business the factory of the appellants company at Andheri was closed. Before the closure the company offered voluntary retirement scheme to its workmen despite the companys financial hardship. The voluntary retirement scheme was accepted by the majority of workmen. However, 320 workmen did not accept of the said voluntary retirement scheme. Consequently, the appellants company was constrained to seek closure of its industrial unit and made an application under Sec.25-O (1) of the said Act. Such application was rejected by the state Government on 12th October, 1992. The company, thereafter, made an application for review of the said order dated 23rd February, 1993 under Sec.25-O (5) of the Act which was well within one year of the order of rejection. The said review application was kept pending by the State Government and in exercise of its power conferred by section 25-O (5) read with Section 10 (1) of the Act instead of reviewing the order of rejection dated 12th October, 1992, the State Government made a reference to the Industrial tribunal for adjudication of the case of closure made by the company. The union moved a writ application before the Bombay high Court representing the interest of 320 workmen challenging the validity of the order of reference made by the State government. The writ application was rejected by the single Bench of the High court but in appeal filed by the Union the Division Bench allowed the said appeal holding that the order passed by the Government under Sec.25-O (4)remains operative for one year from the date of such order and after expiry of such period, the power of review of the order automatically comes to an end. It was further held by the Division Bench that the State Government is not empowered to pass order under section 25-O (5) at any time during the pendency of the review application even if one year had lapsed from the date of the order passed under Sec.25-O (2 ). The said order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme court. Their Lordship interpreting the provision of Sec.25-O has held as under -"after giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that it is quite evident from the scheme of various sub-sections of Sec.25-O of the Act that whenever an application for closure of an industrial unit is made by an employer, the State Government before whom such application is made, is required to dispose of such application within sixty days from the date of making the application and communicate its decision within the said period of sixty days so that an employer does not suffer any hardship on account or fa/lure on the part of the State Government to dispose of such application for permission for closure expeditiously. In order to impel the state Government to dispose of such application expeditiously not exceeding sixty days, provision has been made that if the decision of the State Government on the application for permission to close an industrial unit is not communicated within the said period of sixty days, it will be deemed that such permission has been granted. Since the decision on the application for permission for closure is to be taken by the executive authority namely the State Government and since no provision for statutory review before other authority has been made, the Legislature has incorporated the provision of review by the State Government of its decision on the application for closure either on its own motion or on the basis of the application to be made by the aggrieved party. " "as the decision made by the State government on the question of closure of an industrial unit cannot but bring about serious consequence affecting productivity, employment opportunities etc. " "as the decision made by the State government on the question of closure of an industrial unit cannot but bring about serious consequence affecting productivity, employment opportunities etc. the decision taken on the application for closure, has been made operative for one year only, so that after such period, if an employer still desires that the industrial unit should be closed, it may make a fresh application for permission to close the said unit. It is quite obvious that in such application not only the factors which were indicated in the previous application in justification of closure of the industrial unit but other factors emerging with the passage of time may be placed before the state Government for taking decision on the application for permission to close. In order to evade any un-merited hardship meted out to an aggrieved party on account of improper or incorrect decision made by the State Government on the application for permission to close, even during the period of one year when the decision of the State Government remains operative the review application may be made by the party aggrieved. Even apart from such application, the State Government may also initiate suo motu proceeding to review its decision. If the State government passes any order on such review application, such order will supersede the initial order made on the application for permission to close. " 18. The submission of Mr. Babban lal, learned Senior counsel relying on the decision aforesaid of the Supreme court that this writ application is not maintainable because of the remedy available under Sec.25-O by way of review before the Government has no force at all. In the instant case the application filed by the petitioners for closure of the industry was not rejected by the Government and, therefore, the decision of Vazir Glass Works Limited is also not applicable in this case. 19. As stated above, Sec.25-O does not cast a duty on the industrial undertaking for re-employment of the employees in case permission for the closure of the industry is granted under the said provision. The only rider put by that Section is to give compensation to the employees in the manner provided under Sec.25-O (8) of the said Act. 19. As stated above, Sec.25-O does not cast a duty on the industrial undertaking for re-employment of the employees in case permission for the closure of the industry is granted under the said provision. The only rider put by that Section is to give compensation to the employees in the manner provided under Sec.25-O (8) of the said Act. I am, therefore, of the definite view that the condition put by the Government in the impugned order for giving employment to 38 workmen cannot be sustained in law. 20. For the reason aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the condition put in the impugned order dated 14th July, 1995 as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Application Allowed.