ORDER B.A. Khan, J. 1. Ujjain Textile Mills, a Private Company was taken over by the Government and its management handed over to State Textile Corporation. It was closed down by Govt. Order dt. 14.8.97. Applicants first filed review petition against this order before the Government and then filed W.P. No. 1368/97. They prayed for quashing of the order and for consideration of this Review application by the Government or to require it to refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication in terms of S. 25-0 (5) of Industrial Disppues Act. This Writ Petition was disposed of by order dt. 30.9.97 providing as under- The Counsel for the Petitioner only prays for a derection that the review application may be considered and decided within reasonable time in accordance with law. The aforesaid limited prayer is not seriously opposed by the counsel for Respondents. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the application for review, pending before it within reasonable time in accordance with law. 2. It so happened that Applicants' review petition was rejected by order dt. 29.9.97, a day earlier. Upon this, they filed yet another W.P. No. 1502/97 and in repeat exercise again asked for quashing of the order dt. 14.8.97 and also for a direstion to the Government to make a reference to the tribunal. This Petition was disnissed by order dt. 16.3.98 or the ground that since they had pressed into service only one relief for disposal of their review petition in their First W.P. No. 1368/97, they should be deemed to have abandoned other reliefs thus they could not be allowed to re-open the matter. It was also noticed by the writ Court that all other employees except 7 or 8 persons had accepted retrenchment, compensation and gratuity etc. 3. Applicants have filed this appeal to assail this order now. It is submitted by their counsel Shri P. Mathur that writ Court could not have denied the other reliefs on the ground that they had impliedly given up those in their First Writ Petition. He explains that their review petition was dismissed by the Govt. on 29.9.97, not pursuant to this Court Order dt. 30.9.97. Besides, once they have asked for an alternate relief of reference to the tribunal in the review application, the Govt. was bound to grant it. He explains that their review petition was dismissed by the Govt. on 29.9.97, not pursuant to this Court Order dt. 30.9.97. Besides, once they have asked for an alternate relief of reference to the tribunal in the review application, the Govt. was bound to grant it. He relied upon the D.B. Judgment of Rajasthan High Court in support. 1. The appropriate Government may either or its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any work man, review its order for granting or refusing to grant permission under S.S. 2 or refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. 4. A perusal of the provision shows that word "may" occuring therein makes it optional for the Government to either review the order or granting or refusing permission for closure or to refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. It is not mandatory for the Government to resort to both options simultaneously or one after the other. The word "Or", assumes significance in this context. It may or may not resort to either option or may take one option. When it elects to take review option that ends the matter. It cannot be then asked to take recourse to make reference to the Tribunal. There could be cases where word 'may' used in the provision could be treated directory as done by the Rajasthan High Court but that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In any case, the employee cannot ask for either option as a matter of fact right more so when one option of review stands exhausted. 5. In the present case because Appellants appear to be on as good as valid goose chase, taking one remedy after the other and filing one writ petition over the other on same set of facts and claiming same reliefs, limiting their prayer in one, and re-opening in the others such a situation, provisions of S 25 (O) (5) could not be interpreted in a manner to cast an obligation on the government to necessarily refer the matter to the tribunal for adjudication. 6. For the reasons given, we affirm the writ court order to dismiss this appeal.