P. C. GHOSE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the petitioners inter alia praying for the following relief:- (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue calling upon the respondent Authorities and each of them to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court the records of the case culminating in the order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 forwarded by the said letter dated January 14, 1999 by the respondent No. 3 so that upon consideration thereof the same may be quashed and conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner. (b) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them to - (i) Forthwith rescind, revoke, withdraw or cancel the aforesaid order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 and forwarded to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3. (ii) Grant permission to the petitioner No. 1 to implement the scheme of lay-off as proposed in its application before the respondent No. 2. (c) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above. (d) If no cause or insufficient cause be shown, the Rule be made absolute, (e) Pending disposal of the instant application the petitioner No. I be allowed to implement its said Scheme of lay-off at its said Industrial Unit at Hindmotor, Hooghly; (f) Costs of and incidental to this application be borne by the respondent authorities; (g) Sucli further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction and/or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly stated as follows:- ( 3 ) IN the instant application, the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "hm") are challenging an order dated January 5, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the said order") passed by the Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal rejecting HM's application under Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") seeking permission to lay-off the workers employed at HM's Uttarpara Factory (hereinafter referred to as "the said factory") for 3 days a week (consisting of 6 working days ). ( 4 ) IN the year 1942 the said Company was incorporated as a limited Company. ( 4 ) IN the year 1942 the said Company was incorporated as a limited Company. In the year 1948 the integrated factory at Uttarpara was set up for manufacturing of passenger cars. In January, 1971, in aid of diversification, the said, company submitted a proposal to the Government of India for manufacturing of small passenger car. In the year 1983, Maruti Udyog Limited set up its automobile plant for manufacturing of passenger cars. Various restrictions applicable to the other automobile manufacturers were relaxed by the Government of India in respect of Maruti Udyog Limited. In the year 1985 the petitioners again sought for permission of the Government of India to manufacture a new variety of passenger car in collaboration with Isuzu Motors Limited, Japan which was refused. In the year 1990, market share of the said company in the sphere of passenger cars came down to 15. 8% from 71. 3% as of the year 1980. In the year 1993, the automobile industry was delicensed and several new companies entered in the automobile industry. None of the said new entrants set up integrated automobile plants. According to the petitioners, they have only body shop, paint shop and assembly operators. Extensive facilities were granted by the Government of India in favour of new Companies in the said industry. The production costs of the said new companies were much less than that of the petitioner's company and furthermore, the productivity ratio was much higher than that of the petitioners. In the year 1997, the petitioner's company invested a sum of Rs. 75 crores in respect of the Uttarpara factory for the purpose of modernisation of the said factory. In view of getting support from the Government of West Bengal the said petitioner company made a representation by the letter dated June 18, 1997 and further it was followed up by another letter dated August 13, 1997, but no response was received from the Government of West Bengal. ( 5 ) BY reason of the premises, the market share of the petitioner company in the sphere of passenger cars decreased to 4. 7% till December, 1998. In view of the reduced market demand for its products, the petitioner company was compelled to cut down production target drastically. ( 5 ) BY reason of the premises, the market share of the petitioner company in the sphere of passenger cars decreased to 4. 7% till December, 1998. In view of the reduced market demand for its products, the petitioner company was compelled to cut down production target drastically. Faced with surplus labour and manpower at its said factory which the reduced market demand could not sustain, in the interest of the workers, the said company introduced a Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme in 1998. Upto the hearing of this application according to the petitioner 800 employees had opted for such scheme. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner for achieving the target production, 2-3 days working per week at the Uttarpara factory is more than adequate. The proposed lay-off is only one of the various measures for curtailing the loss at the Uttarpara factory of the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE petitioner's company had applied to the Government of West Bengal in November 1998 seeking permission to generate its own required electricity by using its captive diesel generator sets, but such permission according to the petitioner, has been unreasonably refused. ( 8 ) THE number of unsold vehicles manufactured by the said company also causing increased financial burden on account of interest, increase in storage cost and in general jeopardising its general capital structure. The company has reduced managerial costs to combat the adverse market situation. ( 9 ) THE primary reasons for the present crisis of the company warranting the proposed lay-off are:- (a) Recession in the passenger car industry since early 1997; (b) Worsening of recession in 1998; (c) Continuous fall in the sale of Ambassador and Contessa cars since 1997 due to adverse market conditions; (d) Rise in production costs due to inter alia, increase in labour cost coupled with fall in productivity of labour; (e) Cash crisis; (f) Additional interest cost. ( 10 ) THE petitioners further stated that the said Company has started the modernisation of the said factory and invested a sum of Rs. 75 crores and expected to complete the same to achieve the improvement in quality of its product by April 30, 1999. The said company has further incurred a loss of more than Rs. 6. 60 crores for the month of November and December, 1998. 75 crores and expected to complete the same to achieve the improvement in quality of its product by April 30, 1999. The said company has further incurred a loss of more than Rs. 6. 60 crores for the month of November and December, 1998. According to the petitioner, the extent of loss will further increase if the present state of affairs at the said factory is allowed to continue. ( 11 ) IN these circumstances the said company had applied to the Joint Secretary, Labour- Department, Government of West Bengal for permission to lay-off its workers for 3 days in a week. Subsequently, the said petitioner's company furnished written clarifications vide its letter dated December 24, 1998. ( 12 ) ON January 5, 1999 an order was passed rejecting the application made by the petitioners herein. ( 13 ) MR. Aninda Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the said authority rejected the said application on the basis of extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The said authority sought to penalise the company on the ground that the said company had failed to take steps for combating the recession in the industry. According to Mr. Mitra it is totally wrong approach. Post-mortem of the past is not and cannot be relevant for deciding the need for the present lay-off. Apart from the fact that the said company undertook all feasible measures to combat the market recession, in any event, whether or not the said company took such steps is not a consideration which was relevant for the said Authority to decide the said application. ( 14 ) HE further submitted that the ground on the basis of which said authority rejected the said application are all unsustainable in law. He further submitted that the said factory is suffering huge losses every month and if the proposed lay-off is not allowed, the consequential losses which the said company will suffer, is likely to compel the said company to close down the said factory. According to him, if the proposed lay-off is not sanctioned, the said company will suffer a projected loss of Rs. 7. 30 crores per month for the next one year, and in that event, the said company will have no choice but to close down the said factory. According to him, if the proposed lay-off is not sanctioned, the said company will suffer a projected loss of Rs. 7. 30 crores per month for the next one year, and in that event, the said company will have no choice but to close down the said factory. He further submitted that during 1990-91 and 1992- 93 although the said company suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 76 crores in 3 years, the said company did not propose any lay-off. He further submitted that if the said company is not allowed to implement the proposed lay-off the said factory is unlikely to survive. ( 15 ) HE further submitted that Madras High Court on an application filed by Ennore Foundaries Limited passed an interim order on June 11, 1998 allowing the said company to implement its proposed scheme for lay-off. He further submitted that the biased and closed mind of the said authority against the said company is clear from the averments made in the petition. He further submitted that the affidavit of the State Government filed in this proceedings also clearly indicates that it has closed its mind and has decided against permission for lay-off. According to him, it has become absolutely imperative for the company to resort to lay-off as proposed in order to survive and avoid closure of the factory. The entire premises of the said authority's order is that the management of the said company should have been more prudent and should have had foresight to adopt measures to prevent the present situation and since the management had failed to do so they should not be allowed to implement the scheme of lay-off. He further submitted that apart from such premises being factually incorrect, the same is also wholly irrelevant and extraneous factor in the context of consideration of an application for permission to lay-off. ( 16 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mitra the said authority purported to sit on appeal on the decision of the management regarding the proposed lay-off, which the authority could not have done. There being no finding of mala fide or victimisation of the workers or unfair labour practice, the authority should have allowed the application of the said company. He further submitted that it is pertinent to note that the last hearing before the respondent No. 2 was held on December 22, 1998. There being no finding of mala fide or victimisation of the workers or unfair labour practice, the authority should have allowed the application of the said company. He further submitted that it is pertinent to note that the last hearing before the respondent No. 2 was held on December 22, 1998. Thereafter, the Government of West Bengal invited the petitioners' representatives for meeting on diverse dates which were however all cancelled by the Government and on January 13, 1999 a meeting was held finally. At the said meeting, strangely the respondent No. 2 was present all through and heard the views of the Labour Secretary, which was strongly opposed to sanction the proposed lay-off at the said Uttarpara factory. Mr. Mitra further pointed out that at the said meeting the Labour Secretary observed that a written submission should be made by the said company. Mr. Mitra further submitted that at the said meeting the Labour Secretary observed that the written submission should be made to the Hon'ble Minister and for that purpose the Labour Secretary fixed up a meeting on January 15, 1999 at 1. 30 p. m. which was subsequently cancelled. The impugned order bearing the date of January 5, 1999 was delivered by hand to the petitioner No. 1 at its office at 4. 30 p. m. on January 15, 1999 under cover of a letter dated January 14, 1999, which clearly shows, according to Mr. Mitra that the State Government has closed its mind and further bias regarding the grant of permission to lay-off proposed by the petitioners. He further drew my attention to the report published in the newspapers. "the Telegraph" and the "prateedin" which are annexed to the petition. In the circumstances he submitted that on these facts the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is unsustainable in law and should be quashed. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mitra the proposed lay-off is on account of accumulation of stock of cars at the said factory, which arises for reduction in target of production, fund blockage of approximately Rs. 38 crores, and further increased interest burden. He further drew my attention to Section 2 (kkk) the definition of "lay-off. He further submitted that: lay-off is known only to industrial law. 38 crores, and further increased interest burden. He further drew my attention to Section 2 (kkk) the definition of "lay-off. He further submitted that: lay-off is known only to industrial law. This was specially introduced in the Act by the Amending Act No. 43 of 1953 as Clause (kkk) of Section 2 and was brought into effect from October 24, 1953. No amendment has so far been made to the provision. A bare reading of the definition makes it clear that the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power, or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the break-down of machinery or any other reason that lead to the partial unemployment of a workman, even though his name is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment and he has not been retrenched. Lay-off is an involuntary action of the employer due to reason beyond his control, when a worker present himself for work and the employer fails to give him work, it is a temporary unemployment on account of a cause which is independent of any action or inaction also on the part of the workman himself. ( 18 ) HE further submitted that under Section 25-M (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act the guidelines/criteria have been given to allow the lay-off by a company. According to him, the said section stated about the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons for proposed lay-off. According to him, accumulation of stock, has inter alia, led to reduction in production target. He further stated that 60% reduction in production not voluntarily but because of fall in the market demand. The proposed lay-off is for 3 days in 6 days week i. e. 50% therefore, according to him, reasons for proposed lay-off are genuine and also adequate. He further; submitted that the said Uttarpara factory has been a losing unit. As a result whereof cost savings scheme had to be adopted. "lay-off was one of the means to reduce the cost at Uttarpara Factory. He further submitted that other cost saving means already adopted which are as follows:- (a) Reduction in managerial staff by 33. 3%; (b) Overhead and other costs of production reduced by Rs. 11. As a result whereof cost savings scheme had to be adopted. "lay-off was one of the means to reduce the cost at Uttarpara Factory. He further submitted that other cost saving means already adopted which are as follows:- (a) Reduction in managerial staff by 33. 3%; (b) Overhead and other costs of production reduced by Rs. 11. 36 crores, and further (c) request to the Government for temporary relief for revival of the factory such as permission for captive use of the Generators and Relief for Sales Tax. ( 19 ) HE also submitted that the genuineness of lay-off is also proved by VERS (Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme) offered by the employer. According to him, about 800 workmen have opted for the same till date. ( 20 ) NONE of these facts have been considered by the authority in the impugned order refusing to grant permission. According to him, the impugned order is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant factors which are incumbent upon the authority to consider under Section 25-M of the said Act. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to him the expression "interest of workmen" must mean the interest of the workmen in long run, or otherwise Section 25-M (4) Will become otiose because every lay-off would be contrary to the interest of the workmen for a temporary period, whatever may be the number of days of lay-off in a week. He further submitted that at present only 50% of the work force is required, other option would have been retrenchment of 50% of the workmen. The retrenchment would mean termination of service, whereas lay-off will ensure continuation of service of all workmen. During the period of lay-off, all workmen will get 75% of the wages during the first period of six weeks and thereafter 50% of their weekly wages for working 3 days in a week. Lay-off is for temporary period and will be lifted as soon as normal production is restored. According to him, the company has almost completed Rs. 75 crores modernisation programme for this purpose and as such the "lay-off is in the interest of workmen than retrenchment. ( 22 ) THE other relevant factors should be construed ejusdem generis with the factors mentioned under Section 4 of Section 25-M namely genuineness and adequacy for lay-off and interest of workmen, as was done in case of definition clause of Section 2 (kkk ). ( 22 ) THE other relevant factors should be construed ejusdem generis with the factors mentioned under Section 4 of Section 25-M namely genuineness and adequacy for lay-off and interest of workmen, as was done in case of definition clause of Section 2 (kkk ). The expression "any other connected reasons" occurring in Section 2 (kkk) has been construed to be ejusdem generis with specified reasons for lay-off. "other relevant factors" should mean such other factors as would be relevant for testing genuineness, adequacy of the reason for lay-off and interest of workmen. ( 23 ) MR. Mitra submitted that if lay-off is not motivated and if there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the company and such action had to be taken to save the company from being permanently sick and where the compulsive circumstances beyond the control of the company. In those cases "lay-off is nothing but a requirement. In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment reported in Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr. (1997-III-LLJ (Suppl)-938) (SC ). He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after upholding the validity of Section 25-M, was called upon to decide whether "lay- off declared by the employer without taking prior permission as required under Section 25-M is valid or not. In deciding the said point the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of "lay-off when the said three conditions have been fulfilled by the employee. He further submitted that error of judgment on the part of the management, if any, is not relevant. According to him, there was no lack of managerial foresight. The management has taken the project for modernisation at the said factory in the latter part of 1996. According to him, whether lay-off is uncalled for or not should be decided on the situation that prevailed from the date the order is passed by the authority. There is no question of making a post-mortem at the said date. According to him, the diversification already was (sic) effected in the past by the said company during the period of monopoly. He further submitted that the "standing Order" of Uttarpara factory provides for "lay-off on the ground of curtailment of production, shortage of order, accumulation of stock, uneconomic working, etc. He also placed the same before this Court. According to him, the diversification already was (sic) effected in the past by the said company during the period of monopoly. He further submitted that the "standing Order" of Uttarpara factory provides for "lay-off on the ground of curtailment of production, shortage of order, accumulation of stock, uneconomic working, etc. He also placed the same before this Court. ( 24 ) HE further submitted that the impugned order is perverse and vitiated on the ground stated as follows:- (a) The order of specified authority is nothing but an echo of the oral submissions of the workmen unsupported by any document or material produced by the workmen before the authority concerned. Even then the said authority has taken those submissions of the workmen into consideration and have decided against "lay-off on the basis of irrelevant factors and without any materials. (b) It is correct to state that the Uttarpara Factory is a mother unit. (c) The present crisis and severe recession in the automobile industry as a whole has not been disputed. The question is whether under the present situation the proposed "lay-off" is justified. There is no observation made under the present situation that "lay-off is not justified. According to him, such criticism has been made at the alleged lack of management's foresight for not taking steps for diversification and this is irrelevant. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in Tatanagar Foundry Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1962-I-LLJ-382) (SC ). This criticism according to him is also perverse and contrary to the records before the specified authority on which no reasonable person could come, to such conclusion. (d) It is further perverse because steps have been taken to reduce the overhead cost. It is not observed by the authority that the overhead cost could be reduced any further or that overhead cost can be reduced at the will of the employer. No indication has been given by anybody that overhead cost should be further reduced. Therefore according to him the said observation is based on surmises. (e) The further observation has been made that no "lay-off in the other industrial undertakings by Hindustan Motors Ltd. According to Mr. Mitra, other units are not integrated automobile factories. None of the other units manufacture passenger cars save and except Chennai car plant set up in 1998 in collaboration with Mitsubishi for manufacture of Lancer cars. (e) The further observation has been made that no "lay-off in the other industrial undertakings by Hindustan Motors Ltd. According to Mr. Mitra, other units are not integrated automobile factories. None of the other units manufacture passenger cars save and except Chennai car plant set up in 1998 in collaboration with Mitsubishi for manufacture of Lancer cars. There is no finding in the impugned order that there is any accumulation of stock or surplus work force at other units, which are separate and independent. (f) He further submitted that human factor has not been taken into account. According to him, admitted position is that relation between the employer and employee remains cordial. It follows that "lay-off is not to victimise the workman or out of mala fide motive. Workers' welfare measures/ schemes are still being followed by the employer and as such observation is totally perverse. (g) The observation with regard to the non-application of mind of the provision of law. According to Mr. Mitra order for permission will remain operative for one year as per Sub-section 6 of the Section 25-M. Observation in respect thereof is erroneous in law on the face of it. (h) Mr. Mitra submitted that observation has been made with regard to the spare-parts. This observation is based on wrong recording of fact and is wholly perverse. He further submitted that observation made in respect of lack of foresight is not relevant in the present situation. According to the Act, its present situation is to be considered which has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment. Therefore, according to Mr. Mitra, this observation is also incorrect and perverse. (i) According to Mr. Mitra, the other observation which has been made by the respondent authorities with regard to the profit and according to them the Hindustan Motors Limited was earning overall profit upto 1997-98, because of other units, but Uttarpara factory has been a losing concern for several years and he also drew my attention to the documents and submitted that Uttarpara factory faced a loss of Rs. 11. 20 crores during April, 1998 to September, 1998 for six months only. According to him, the first nine months of the current financial year, Uttarpara factory alone suffered an aggregate loss of Rs. 30. 47 crores. 11. 20 crores during April, 1998 to September, 1998 for six months only. According to him, the first nine months of the current financial year, Uttarpara factory alone suffered an aggregate loss of Rs. 30. 47 crores. He further submitted that by reason of loss of Uttarpara factory profits earned by other units of the company aggregating to Rs. 19. 66 crores have been totally off-set and the company has suffered overall loss of Rs. 10. 81 crores during this period. (j) He further submitted that specified authorities have not held that the proposal for "lay-off is mala fide or for victimisation of workers or it is an unfair labour practice. The specified authority have simply observed that there is no case for lay-off in general vague term without recording any finding that the proposed lay-off is not in the interest of workmen or there is no genuine or adequate reason for lay-off. The impugned order is in violation of Section 25-M (4) and has been passed without following the guidelines prescribed thereunder. ( 25 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mitra totally a wrong approach and assumption of appeal Court has been adopted by the specified authority. In support of his contention he submitted as follows:- (a) Unless mala fides of the management is established or it is proved that the management has deliberately brought about the crisis, it is improper for a Tribunal to enquire into or even consider the sufficiency of foresight of the management. In embarking on an enquiry as regards the prudence of the management, the authority exceeds its jurisdiction. (b) The management is free to organise its business so as to avoid a regulatory law and so long as it is bona fide, it is not for the authority to question its propriety. If such an arrangement results in surplusage of employees, no employer is expected to carry the burden of such economic dead-weight and the consequential retrenchment may be unfortunate but has to be accepted as inevitable. The absence of evidence of unfair labour practice makes all the difference. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in Party and Co. Ltd. v. P. C. Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal Calcutta and Ors. (1970-II-LU-429) (SC ). The absence of evidence of unfair labour practice makes all the difference. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in Party and Co. Ltd. v. P. C. Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal Calcutta and Ors. (1970-II-LU-429) (SC ). (c) There can be no presumption of mala fide on the part of the management just because it departs from some established rule, on the facts of that case departure from the rule of "last come, first go", in case of retrenchment. The Tribunal has no authority to sit in appeal over the decision of the management In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in State of U. P. and Anr. v. Shri Krishna Pandey AIR 1996 SC 1657. (d) A statutory Authority must exercise its discretion on relevant considerations. Exercising its discretion on the basis of irrelevant considerations is no exercise of discretion at all. Such an order is liable to be set aside. He also relied upon the following judgments: - (i) Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and Ors. 1971 (2) QBD 175. (ii) Padfield and Ors. v. Minister of Agriculture and Food and Ors. 1968 AC 997. (iii) The Queen of the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook v. The Vestry of St. Pancras 1980 (24) QBD 371. (iv) Pilling v. Abergele Urban District Council 1950 (1) KB 636. (e) A company implemented lay-off without prior permission of the authority under Section 25-M of the said Act, such lay-off has been upheld by the Court in a judgment reported in Ashok Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1995-11-LLJ-685) (SC ). ( 26 ) MR. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities submitted that this writ application should not be entertained at this stage since there is an alternative remedy under said Act itself. He further submitted that under Section 25-M (7) of the said Act, the Government or the specified authority 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 Sub-section (4) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication. According to him, since there is an alternative remedy this writ Court should not interfere in this matter. According to him, since there is an alternative remedy this writ Court should not interfere in this matter. ( 27 ) ACCORDING to him, an order granting or refusing the permission for "lay-off should be final and binding on all the parties concerned. He further submitted that the writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for appellate jurisdiction. According to him, the grounds urged by the petitioner may be divided into two parts - (i) incorrect appraisal of the material by the authority, (ii) non-consideration of relevant facts and consideration of extraneous facts. ( 28 ) ACCORDING to the Advocate General, the writ application cannot be sustained on the first ground, with regard to the second ground, the petitioner has not been able to cite even a single instance of non-consideration by the authority of any of the material produced before the authority or of consideration of any extraneous material in arriving at the order impugned herein. ( 29 ) HE further submitted that by a letter dated November 20, 1998 the petitioner company prayed for temporary relief for the next 3 to 6 months praying for permission to utilise the stand-by generator and thereby save Rs. 20 lakhs per month, permission to set off Sales Tax paid on components against Sales Tax liability on sale of finished vehicles, Central Sales Tax be reduced by 1% and deferment of Sales Tax collection for a period of 6 months which would be paid back in 12 equal monthly instalments thereafter and bulk in the investment being made will be completed in the next 6 weeks. According to the petitioner, "these relief measures should enable us to jointly ensure the revival of our Uttarpara Car Plant". ( 30 ) MR. Advocate General submitted that a prohibition of lay-off except with the prior permission of the appropriate Government or authority unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or natural calamity. According to him, Section 25-M (4) requires that permission should be granted or to be refused after considering the following steps:- (i) after making such enquiry as the authority thinks fit and proper; (ii) after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (iii) after considering the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons; (iv) further the interest of the workmen; (v) all other relevant factors and thereafter; (vi) grant or refuse to grant such permission to be recorded in writing with reasons. ( 31 ) ACCORDING to him, all these steps have been taken in accordance with law by concerned authority. There is no violation committed or there is no error appearing on the face of the said order passed by the authority concerned. According to him all steps have been taken and there is no question to set aside the said order passed by the concerned authority at this stage. He further submitted that for the interest of the workmen it is necessary to dismiss this application. Furthermore, the writ Court should not sit on appeal of the order which has been passed by the concerned authorities. The only remedy of the petitioner if aggrieved at all can apply before the appropriate authorities for review of the said order and/or to apply before the Tribunal who can go into the matter and shall decide the case in accordance with law. He also submitted that there is no perversity in the order passed by the authority. ( 32 ) MR. Shakti Nath Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, submitted that the reasons given in the application dated December 26, 1998 made by the petitioner are as follows:- (a) Severe recession in the Automobile industry; (b) entry of foreign automobile Companies with ability to sustain loss; (c) inability to increase price so as to neutralise increases in prices of inputs; (d) increase of loss in the coming financial year; (e) gross under-utilisation of capacity. ( 33 ) THE formal application was preceded by a letter dated November 20, 1998 to the Chief Minister, West Bengal, by the petitioner. According to Mr. Mukherjee, definition of "lay-off empowers the employer on the failure, refusal or inability of an employer to give employment to a workman. He further drew my attention to Section 25-C which was introduced after Amendment of the said Act in the year 1953. The Section 25-C of Chapter 5a deals with the right of workmen who have been laid off in industrial establishment coming under Section 25-A. There is a restriction or a regulation. 1953 Amendment Act proceeds on recognition of the right of employer to lay-off but creates obligation to pay compensation under Section 25-C. Section 25-M introduces a prohibition of lay-off except with the prior permission of the appropriate Government or authority unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or natural calamity. 1953 Amendment Act proceeds on recognition of the right of employer to lay-off but creates obligation to pay compensation under Section 25-C. Section 25-M introduces a prohibition of lay-off except with the prior permission of the appropriate Government or authority unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or natural calamity. He further submitted that an application is required to be made in the prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended lay-off. According to him, the Section 25-M (4) requires an application to be disposed of:- (i) After making such enquiry as it thinks fit; (ii) giving reasonable opportunity of being heard; (iii) for record to the genuineness and adequacy of the reason; (iv) the interest of the workmen; (v) all other relevant factors; (vi) grant or refuse for reasons to be recorded in writing. ( 34 ) HE further submitted that the decision cited by Mr. Mitra was on an industrial dispute raised in the context of Section 2 (kkk) and Section 25-C both introduced by the Amendment Act of 1953. The decision settles the scope of an enquiry by the Tribunal. He further stated that, has given the reasons by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenakshi Mill case (1992-II-LLJ-294) (SC) have been adopted to uphold the validity of Section 25-M, where the Supreme Court has held that "the object of the 1976 Act was to prevent avoidable hardship to the employees resulting from retrenchment. " He further stated that "the retrenchment has been imposed in greater public interest" and the "employees suffer no loss for no fault of their own". He further stated that the Madras decision is an interim order. The said matter has not yet been decided and no law has yet been laid down. ( 35 ) ACCORDING to him, the order which has been challenged by the petitioner, reasons have been given by the concerned authority after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. He further submitted that not every situation or appreciation of loss will entitle the employer to have a permission for lay-off, the purpose being to protect the avoidable hardship in greater public interest. He further submitted that the employer would have to justify the proposal. According to him, the Hindustan Motors was established in or about 1950. He further submitted that not every situation or appreciation of loss will entitle the employer to have a permission for lay-off, the purpose being to protect the avoidable hardship in greater public interest. He further submitted that the employer would have to justify the proposal. According to him, the Hindustan Motors was established in or about 1950. Initially enjoyed the virtual monopoly in the Indian market in respect of the automobile industry and remained the market leader until the advent of Maruti. According to him, the motor unit at Uttarpara provides the nucleus for the expansion and diversification resulting in establishment of 5 other units. The order under challenge approached the problem from the point of view of financial hardship and greater public interest. ( 36 ) HE further submitted that the order takes into consideration the ability of the Company to absorb the loss for the period of two years. The employer cannot shut out an enquiry contemplated by Section 25-M (4) under the cover of the Supreme Court judgment in Tatanagar Foundry case. The exercise involves not merely a cost accounting but also social accounting. It is no longer the law that inspite of managerial lapses, lack of foresight and profit making under virtual monopoly condition for about 4 decades. It is employee and employees only who suffer lay-off or retrenchment in the event of any temporary loss or set back. In this situation he submitted that this application should be dismissed. ( 37 ) MR. Mukherjee further submitted that in this application the statements which have been made in paragraphs 27, 30, 32, 37, 42, 56, 57 and so on, all these materials were not before the appropriate authority nor placed by the said company at the time of the hearing of the said application for permission to lay-off and as such this Court should not take into account in respect of the said materials at this stage. ( 38 ) MR. Partha Sengupta appearing on behalf of one of the unions submitted that under Section 25-M (1) the petitioner has no right to ask for any lay-off at this stage in view of that unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power, or to natural calamity, no application can be filed by the employers for lay-off. He relied upon the judgments reported in Hindustan Copper Limited and Ors. v. Copper Mazdoor Union and Ors. He relied upon the judgments reported in Hindustan Copper Limited and Ors. v. Copper Mazdoor Union and Ors. , (1998-II-LLJ-547) (Cal-DB), and submitted that expression "having regard to" has been dealt with by the said Division Bench which reads as follows:-"the expression "having regard to" had been considered by the Privy Council in Ryots of Garbhandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, AIR 1943 PC 164, where it was held that the words "having regard to", in a statutory provision do not mean, that there must be very strict compliance with the Statutory provisions but the provisions should be taken for guidance only. " ( 39 ) MR. Sengupta also submitted that it is mere guidance for the Government which can grant approval or not and the expression genuineness or adequacy of reasons and/or the interest of general public are to be taken for guidance only and it does not mean that the Government while passing this order must enter into the grounds of genuineness. In support of his contention he also relied upon the said judgment reported in (1998-II-LLJ-547) (Cal- DB) (supra) and he submitted that the said Division Bench has also held that it is no longer open to this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Government in this regard and similarly he submitted that this Court will not sit in appeal over the decision of the said respondents passed in this matter. ( 40 ) MR. Sengupta further relied upon a judgment reported in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Vazir Glass Works Ltd. and Ors. , (I998-III-LLJ (Suppl)-231) (Bom-DB), and submitted that the said judgment has held that whether the public interest and other relevant reasons would include State interest. The State is very much concerned with the closure of industries as it has an adverse effect on employment potential in the State and the soundness of its economy, in fact the legislature itself has recognised this fact by calling on a company/undertaking to move an application under Section 25-O of the Act to the appropriate Government. There is a purpose behind this. It is the State Government which can given concessions in the form of tax facilities, reduction of power tariff etc. in order to enable an industry to stand on its own feet and/or to obviate its financial and other difficulties and as such Mr. There is a purpose behind this. It is the State Government which can given concessions in the form of tax facilities, reduction of power tariff etc. in order to enable an industry to stand on its own feet and/or to obviate its financial and other difficulties and as such Mr. Sengupta submitted that in this instant case the case which has been decided by the authority concerned not only in the interest of the workmen, but also in the interest of State. ( 41 ) ACCORDING to him, he has specifically stated that after taking into consideration of the facts in accordance with Section 25-M the authority has passed the said impugned order with reasons therein. He further submitted in view of that this application should not be allowed. ( 42 ) MR. Arun Prakash Chatterjee appearing on behalf of one of the Unions submitted that he adopts the submissions made by all other unions and submitted that this Court should not interfere in this matter. He also submitted that certain new materials have been produced before this Court which were not produced before the authority concerned and as such this Court should not look into the said materials. ( 43 ) MR. Mitra appearing on behalf of the Hindustan Motors in reply submitted that the case cited by Mr. Sengupta reported in 1998 (1) CHN 366 (supra) a Division Bench of this Court reiterated and relying on the Supreme Court decision of Excelwear, (1978-11-LLJ-527) (SC), that right to close of business is an integral part of the fundamental right to carry on business, though such right is not absolute. As it appears from the said judgment the Division Bench has held as follows: -"from the file it appears that the matter travels from one ministry to another and various authorities, who considered and kept their opinions and observations on file and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and colossal loss that if the mines are allowed to continue in that event, monthly loss would be about Rs. 3 crores. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the decision of the Central Government particularly in view of the fact that the Court cannot compel any party to carry on business knowing well that carrying of such business would entail huge loss. . . . . 3 crores. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the decision of the Central Government particularly in view of the fact that the Court cannot compel any party to carry on business knowing well that carrying of such business would entail huge loss. . . . . " ( 44 ) HE further submitted that in other words, the annual loss of about Rs. 3 crores suffered by the company in the said matter weighs heavily with the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in coming to the decision that the permission for closure granted to that company by the appropriate Authority was wholly justified. In the facts of the instant case, if lay-off, as proposed, is not allowed, the estimated monthly loss that the petitioners will suffer in the region of Rs. 6. 60 crores for November and December, 1998 only. ( 45 ) MR. Mitra further relied on a judgment reported in D. C. M. Ltd. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. , (1989-II-LLJ-250) (Delhi) and submitted that it was held that while accepting that the company was suffering huge losses, the cryptic decision of the adjudicating Authority that such loss could not be said to be representing in irretrievable situation warranting closure of the company, was not sustainable in law. The Court also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Excelwear (supra ). ( 46 ) HE further distinguished the judgment cited by Mr. Sengupta reported in 1996 (2) CLR 990 (supra) and submitted that, in the said case, upon a reference made under Section 25-O (5), the Tribunal passed an award granting permission for closure. In the writ petition, the Union challenged the said award on the ground of non-application of mind of the Tribunal as also for non-consideration of public interest and other matters. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Tribunal by which the factory of respondent No. 1 was allowed to be closed down. ( 47 ) HE further submitted that the said case is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this instant case. In the said matter, company did not want to repair the furnaces and in fact was trying to bring about a situation so that the whole factory stopped functioning. ( 47 ) HE further submitted that the said case is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this instant case. In the said matter, company did not want to repair the furnaces and in fact was trying to bring about a situation so that the whole factory stopped functioning. The whole idea of the said company was to close down the factory at Andheri. The said company further diverted its profit to establish the other company in different places and further diverted the orders of the said company to other factories. On the said facts the grounds mentioned in the application for closure was not genuine and the Court held that the element of public interest that was involved in a closure was also not considered by the Tribunal. In the instant application such circumstances has not arisen and further the petitioners' company has no intention to close down the business rather eager to continue the same and in the interest of the employees wanted to lay-off for betterment in long run. ( 48 ) HE further stated that according to the respondents the submissions were made for the overhead cost was reduced at will without taking into account that certain overhead cost cannot be reduced by the company in this matter. The said argument on behalf of the State Government is based on misconception of what is overhead cost. He further submitted that steps have been taken to reduce overhead costs. He further submitted that no effective way of reducing overhead cost has been suggested either before or by the specified authority or in course of argument before this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that Hindustan Motors Ltd. was a profit making company upto the financial year 1997-98, but Uttarpara factory has been a losing concern for several years. ( 49 ) HE further submitted that the State Government in its affidavit has whole-heartedly supported the decision of the respondent No. 2 refusing permission for lay-off. Therefore, any application for review to the respondent No. 2 in accordance with Section 25-M (7) of the said Act would be an empty formality. According to him, such remedy is illusory in nature and cannot be considered to be an alternative efficacious remedy for the purpose of barring a writ petition. He further submitted that an alternative remedy is not a bar to a writ application. According to him, such remedy is illusory in nature and cannot be considered to be an alternative efficacious remedy for the purpose of barring a writ petition. He further submitted that an alternative remedy is not a bar to a writ application. ( 50 ) HE further submitted that a provision for review of an order before an Authority I passing that order is not such an alternative remedy as would bar a writ application challenging the impugned order, He further submitted that the alternative statutory remedy in this case would delay the procedure and hence this Hon'ble Court should entertain the writ petition. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments reported in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. , Abdul Rehman Jami v. Union of India and Ors. , K Vellaswamy v. Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Madras and Ors. , Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries. ( 51 ) HE further submitted that when a statutory authority exercises its discretionary power on the basis of irrelevant consideration, or unreasonably or arbitrarily or in a perverse manner the Court has jurisdiction and power to issue all necessary directions on such Authority. According to him, the specified authority has failed to take into consideration all relevant factors. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgments, reported in The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Anr. v. K. S. Jagannathan and Ors. , and Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty v. The Hon'ble The chief Justice, High Court (1990-II-LLJ-116) (Cal ). ( 52 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the applicable law, Mr. Mitra submitted that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its jurisdiction shall quash the impugned order of the respondent No. 2 and direct the respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to implement the proposed lay-off which would ensure to the long term benefit of all concerned. ( 53 ) AFTER considering all these facts and circumstances of this case and the judgments cited before me by the parties as it appears to me that the order which has been passed by the concerned authority on the basis of irrelevant factors. ( 53 ) AFTER considering all these facts and circumstances of this case and the judgments cited before me by the parties as it appears to me that the order which has been passed by the concerned authority on the basis of irrelevant factors. The basis of the impugned order which has been passed by the said authority that management should have necessary foresight which they have lacked is completely irrelevant in deciding the matter in question. It further appears that the said authority has specifically stated that Uttarpara Factory is the mother Unit of the Hind Motors Limited and the company subsequently set the five other units in different parts of the country. Such observation has been made in my opinion without any basis whatsoever. There is no allegation made that out of the profits of the Uttarpara Factory all other units have been established or the money has been siphoned out from the said factory for the purpose of setting up the other units with an intention to close down and/or to decrease the said business. The further observation with regard to the overhead cost as mentioned in the said impugned order is without any basis and/or reasons. It further appears that as pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Unions before me that many other material facts are placed before this Court which were not at the time of the hearing of the said application before the said concerned authority. It also appears that no documents were placed before the authority concerned by the unions appearing before the said authority and all the submissions have been made by the unions without any documents whatsoever. ( 54 ) NO case has also been made out before me that the company's proposed "lay-off is only to adopt unfair labour practice or to defraud the workmen. The Division Bench of this High Court has already held in the case of Hindustan Copper Limited, (supra) and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Excelwear, (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to close down a business is an integral part of the fundamental right to carry on business and further the Court cannot compel a party to carry on business knowing fully well that carrying of such business would entail huge loss. In view of such decisions and also the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in respect of D. C. M. Limited, (supra) I do not have hesitation to hold that while accepting the company was suffering huge loss, the cryptic decision of the adjudicating authority cannot be sustainable in law. ( 55 ) I further do not have any hesitation to hold that the review of an order is not an alternative remedy and such right of review cannot take the parties to invoke the writ jurisdiction. ( 56 ) AFTER considering all these aspects of the matter and also in the interest of the parties I set aside the impugned order dated January 5, 1999 with a direction to the said authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after taking into consideration all the relevant factors of this case and after giving a hearing to the parties and shall pass a reasoned order within 3 weeks from the date of communication of this order. All parties shall be at liberty to rely upon the documents before the authority concerned. Accordingly this application is disposed of. ( 57 ) MR. Sengupta prayed for stay of operation of this judgment and/or order which is refused.