JUDGMENT : N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—Both the writ petitions are admitted. 2. Sri R. Chandrasekaran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent and Sri Sanjay Mohan learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent in both the writ petitions. 3. The prayers in the two writ petitions are common and it is enough to notice the prayer in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002 for the disposal of both the writ petitions. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 10304 of 2002 is to direct the first respondent, viz., the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Labour and Employment, Chennai, to refer the issue relating to the closure of the Machinery Division of the second respondent, viz., Textool Company Ltd., Ganapathy, Coimbatore, for adjudication and pending' award by the Industrial Tribunal to forbear the second respondent from giving effect to the closure with effect from March 31, 2002. 4. I heard Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002 and Sri S. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10642 of 2002 and Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the second respondent in both the petitions and the learned Government Advocate. 5. I am of the view, it is not necessary to deal with the earlier application filed by the second respondent before the Joint, Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, seeking permission to lay-off the machinery division of the second respondent-company or the application filed u/s 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the scope of the writ petitions is confirmed to the effect of the deeming provision u/s 25-O(3) of the Act and the need to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. 6. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are that the second respondent-company on December 26, 2001 filed an application u/s 25-O of the Act before the first respondent to close down its manufacturing unit and it is stated that the textile division of the second respondent-company was started out of the profits of the manufacturing unit. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are that the second respondent-company on December 26, 2001 filed an application u/s 25-O of the Act before the first respondent to close down its manufacturing unit and it is stated that the textile division of the second respondent-company was started out of the profits of the manufacturing unit. The first respondent, no doubt, posted the matter for enquiry u/s 25-O of the Act on January 18, 2001 and out of eleven unions, seven unions participated and it is stated that the petitioners in both the writ petitions filed written statements and also raised objections against the closure of the manufacturing unit and the matter was adjourned to February 5, 2001 and the matters were heard and orders were reserved, but the first respondent has not passed any order u/s 25-O(2) of the Act within the period of 60 days from the date on which the application was filed. The effect of the non-passing of the order u/s 25-O(2) of the Act within 60 days from the date of filing of the application is that the prayer sought for in the application shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiry of the sixty days u/s 25-O(3), of the Act. The second respondent on the basis of the deemed grant of the closure of the manufacturing unit has issued notices to various workmen terminating their services with effect from March 31, 2002. Hence both the writ-petitioners have approached the Court seeking a direction directing the first respondent to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication u/s 25-O(5) of the Act with reference to the closure of the machinery division of the second respondent- company and also not to close down the machinery division till the award is passed. 7. Sri N.G.R. Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002 referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2002 SC 708 and Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. 7. Sri N.G.R. Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002 referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2002 SC 708 and Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Another, AIR 1994 SC 2696 and submitted that the right of the right to livelihood of the employee is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and since the first respondent has not passed any order on the application filed by the second respondent u/s 25-O of the Act, the right to livelihood of the workers is affected and the right to livelihood of the workers guaranteed by the Constitution of India should be protected by this Court and suitable directions should be given by this Court protecting the rights of the workmen who will be thrown out of the employment affecting the rights to work and right to livelihood by the sheer lapse on the part of the first respondent in not passing any order as required u/s 25-O(2) of the Act and by the operation of the deeming provision u/s 23-O(3) of the Act. Sri N.G.R. Prasad learned counsel also submitted that there are nearly 472 workers and if the second respondent is allowed to close down its manufacturing unit it would result in the termination of 472 workers from work. Learned counsel therefore submitted that since the first respondent has not passed any order u/s 25-O(2) of the Act giving reasons, the right to livelihood of the employees who would be affected by the closure should be protected by the Court. 8. Sri S. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P. No. 10642 of 2002 also referred to certain factual details and submitted that the Government has not applied its mind and passed order in the application filed by the second respondent u/s 25-O of the Act. Learned counsel also submitted that earlier the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, applied his mind and found that lay-off is not warranted. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that earlier the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, applied his mind and found that lay-off is not warranted. 9. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-company, on the other hand, submitted that out of eleven unions, six unions participated in the enquiry before the first respondent and they also filed a Joint letter, dated February 4, 2002 stating that they have no objection for the closure provided their legal payments are ensured. As far as CITU is concerned, learned counsel submitted that though the said union had filed a counter before the Secretary to Government, it never participated in the enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that M.D.M. K.M.L.F. also filed a counter but it did not participate in the enquiry. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel therefore submitted that so far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002 is concerned, it consists of 99 members and in so far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 10642 of 2002 is concerned, it consists of 45 members. When other unions have not challenged the order of closure it is not open to the minority members to question the order of closure. Learned counsel therefore submitted that there are no work orders for the manufacturing unit of the company and electricity supply was also disconnected and there is a huge demand from Sales Tax Department and the second respondent has produced all these materials before the first respondent and there is a compelling necessity on the part of the second respondent to close down the manufacturing unit of the company. Learned counsel also submitted that majority of the workers have accepted the closure and if any order passed at the instance of minority of workers, it will result in industrial unrest and it will upset the entire process. Learned counsel submitted that several unions have expressed no objection for the closure of the manufacturing unit provided their payments u/s 25-O(8) of the Act are ensured and they have expressed their consent after the earlier orders under sub-sections 25-M and 25-N of the Act were passed. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002. Sri S. Kumaraswamy learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. 10642 of 2002 and Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the second respondent. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002. Sri S. Kumaraswamy learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. 10642 of 2002 and Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the second respondent. I am of the view it is not necessary to go into the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent. I find that the State Government has not applied its mind and passed orders as required u/s 25-O(2) of the Act. The non-passing of the order u/s 25-O(2) of the Act within 60 days has resulted in a situation where the deeming provision u/s 25-O(3) of the Act has come into operation and under that provision the approval for closure of the machinery unit is deemed to have been granted. 11. Section 25-O(5) of the Act provides that 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 u/s 25-O(2) of the Act or to refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication. Though a doubt arose whether the provision of Section 25-O of the Act would apply in a case covered u/s 25-O(3) of the Act without deciding that question both the parties agreed that the latter part of Section 25-O(5) of the Act would cover the situation in which no order was passed by the appropriate authority within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of application u/s 25-O(1) of the Act. I find that appropriate authority has not applied its mind whether the second respondent was justified in taking action for closure of the. manufacturing unit u/s 25-O of the Act and has not passed any order u/s 25-O(2) of the Act. I am of the view that independent Tribunal should decide the question in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (supra), decided whether the closure of the manufacturing unit is justified or not. I am of the view that independent Tribunal should decide the question in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (supra), decided whether the closure of the manufacturing unit is justified or not. It is seen that the writ petitioner in W.P. No., 10304 of 2002 has filed an application to the first respondent on March 6, 2002 requesting the State Government to refer the matter relating to the closure of the manufacturing unit of the respondent-company to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication at the earliest point of time u/s 25-O(5) read with Section 10 of the Act. 12. It is stated that the first respondent has not passed any order on the application, dated March 6, 2002, filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 10304 of 2002. Since the livelihood of workmen concerned in the manufacturing unit is involved, in the interest of justice I am of the view that the first respondent should refer the dispute regarding closure of the manufacturing unit of the second respondent-company to the Industrial Tribunal, and for this purpose, the Labour Court, Coimbatore, is ordered to function as a Special Tribunal. Therefore the first respondent is directed to refer the dispute u/s 25-O(5) of the Act to the Labour Court, Coimbatore which will be the Special Tribunal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Under proviso to Section 25-O(5) of the Act, if any reference is made, the Tribunal shall pass orders within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the reference. However, considering the nature of the dispute and the volume of evidence that may be let in by both the parties, the Special Tribunal is directed to pass award within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the reference. The Special Tribunal is directed to conduct the proceedings on day-to-day basis and pass award within the period stipulated above. All the parties are directed to extend their full co-operation without seeking unnecessary adjournments in this matter. The Special Tribunal is directed to conduct the proceedings on day-to-day basis and pass award within the period stipulated above. All the parties are directed to extend their full co-operation without seeking unnecessary adjournments in this matter. The first respondent is directed to positively issue the notification u/s 10 of the Act referring the dispute regarding the closure of the manufacturing unit of the second respondent, viz., Textool Company Ltd., Ganapathy, Coimbatore, to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, which will be the Special Tribunal u/s 25-O(5) of the Act within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is open to the first respondent to act on the basis of the copy of the order that may be produced by any of the parties. It is made clear that till the award is passed by the Special Tribunal within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the reference, the intended closure of the manufacturing unit of the second respondent-company and the notices of termination issued to the members of both the petitioner-unions shall not take effect. It is also made clear that if the Special Tribunal does not pass an award within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the reference the order of closure u/s 25-O(3) of the Act would come into effect. 13. Further it is made clear that till the Special Tribunal passes an award, the members of both the petitioner-unions would be entitled to a sum of money equivalent to the salary though the award that will be passed by the Special Tribunal would bind the management and all the workers. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel submitted that it is not necessary for the workers/members of both the petitioner-unions to report for duty and attend the office and in spite of that, they would be paid the sum of money equivalent to salary till the Special Tribunal passes the award. Therefore, it is not necessary for the workers/members of both the petitioner-unions to report for duty before the second respondent. It is made clear that the above order is confined only to the members of the two petitioner unions. Therefore, it is not necessary for the workers/members of both the petitioner-unions to report for duty before the second respondent. It is made clear that the above order is confined only to the members of the two petitioner unions. It is also open to the parties to approach this Court for the issue of suitable directions in case the matter before the Labour Court gets delayed beyond the reasons of their own control. 14. Learned counsel for the second respondent has given an undertaking that the second respondent will not remove any of the machineries or articles lying in the machinery division of the company. The undertaking is recorded and the second respondent is directed not to remove any of the machineries or articles found in the machinery division of the second respondent-company. The second respondent is also directed to take inventory of articles and machineries in the machinery division of its company in the presence of the representatives of the two petitioner-unions and submit the list of inventory before this Court within a period of two weeks. 15. Accordingly both the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently W.P.M.P. Nos. 13935, 14508, 14358 and 14359 of 2002 are dismissed. 16. This case having been posted for being mentioned on Thursday, the Twenty eighth day of March 2002 in the presence of the aforesaid advocates, the Court made the following order: In the earlier order, dated March 28, 2002, I have directed that the inventory of articles and machineries found in the machinery division of the second respondent-company shall be taken by the second respondent in the presence of the representatives of the two petitioner-unions. (2) Today, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that instead of directing the second respondent to take inventory in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner-unions, the inventory may be directed to be taken by an independent Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the same. Accordingly, the earlier order, dated March 28, 2002, in W.P. Nos. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the same. Accordingly, the earlier order, dated March 28, 2002, in W.P. Nos. 10304 and 10642 of 2002 is modified and I direct the Labour Court, Coimbatore, to appoint a Commissioner, preferably an advocate and the Commissioner is directed to take inventory of the fixed articles and machineries and also finished products available in the premises of the machinery division of the second respondent-company, and file a report before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Commissioner is also directed to take photographs and submit the same before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The second respondent is directed to pay the fees of the Commissioner and to bear the expenses that may be incurred for taking inventory by the Commissioner. As an independent Commissioner is appointed, I am of the view that it is not necessary for the representatives of both the petitioner unions to accompany the Commissioner at the time of taking inventory. The order shall form part of the earlier order, dated March 28, 2002.