ORDER : S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—As three unions or its members have challenged the common decision incorporated in letter contained in memo No. L-42024/53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) dated 2nd January, 2003 and the notice of closure of units dated 3rd January, 2003, they were heard together and are being disposed of. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited decided to close its "Surda Copper Mines, Mosabani Concentrator Plant and other allied Departments" situated in the district of Singhbhum (East) w.e.f. 3rd January, 2003. The workmen have been asked either to voluntary retire as per V.R. Scheme or to force retrenchments. 3. Initially for closure of aforesaid Surda Copper Mines, Mosabani Concentrator Plant and others allied Departments", the respondents followed the provisions of Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent-Hindustan Copper Limited sought for prior permission from the Central Government. The Central Government on hearing the parties, te., Management and the Unions refused to grant permission of closure of Units aforesaid by letter contained in Memo No. L- 42024/53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) dated 11th October, 2002, as there was no technical study report submitted by the Indian Bureau of Mines. However, the matter was kept open for reconsideration on submission of such technical study report. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents- Union of India, thereafter, reviewed its decision vide impugned letter No. I-42024/53/2002-LR (Misc.) dated 2nd January. 2003 and accorded permission for closure of 'Surda Copper Mines, Mosabani Concentrator Plant and other allied Departments' without notice and hearing the Unions and without supplying the copies of study report. 5. It is not in dispute that under Sub-section (5) to Section 25(O) of I.D. Act, 1947 it is open to the appropriate Government (Central Government herein) either on its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any workman to review its order relating to grant or refusal to grant permission to close a Unit. It may also refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication. But no such review can be made without giving notice and hearing to the parties, who were heard at the initial stage. 6. It is not in dispute that the Unions or its Workmen were not heard before review of earlier order and before issuance of impugned letter No. L-42024/53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) dated 2nd January, 2003. But no such review can be made without giving notice and hearing to the parties, who were heard at the initial stage. 6. It is not in dispute that the Unions or its Workmen were not heard before review of earlier order and before issuance of impugned letter No. L-42024/53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) dated 2nd January, 2003. In this background the decision to review cannot be upheld. 7. A similar case fell for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Khetri Tamba Shramik Sangh and Ors. v. Union of and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149/2003. In the said case also the parties were noticed and after consideration of the objections the Central Government vide order dated 11th October, 2002 refused to grant permission. Subsequently such decision was reviewed vide one order dated 3rd January, 2003 without supplying the copy of study report of the Indian Bureau of Mines and without hearing the Unions. The Court vide its (un-reported) decision dated 30th January, 2003 held as follows ; "It is not disputed by the parties that while passing the order dated 11.10.2002 all the Unions were given notice and afforded ample opportunity of being heard and after considering their objections the order dated 11.10.2002 has been passed. It also reveals that the Management of the Unions was well aware of the study conducted by the Indian Bureau of Mine, therefore, they represented before the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi vide their letter dated 23.12.2002 but it is also not disputed that they are, not provided the copy of such study. Therefore, while passing the order dated 3.1.2003 admittedly the four Unions were not given opportunity of being heard as stipulated in Sub-section (2) of Section 25(O). I am also not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that the procedure for closing down the undertaking is only guideline and not having a binding force. Since the legislature enacted this provision (Section 25(O)) in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 this section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot said to be only guidelines. On the contrary the procedure for closing down of undertaking has been laid down u/s 25(O), Sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. For the purpose of closure the mandatory provision has to be complied with. On the contrary the procedure for closing down of undertaking has been laid down u/s 25(O), Sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. For the purpose of closure the mandatory provision has to be complied with. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 25(O) the order dated 3.1.2003 has been passed by the respondents without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and in contravention of Sub-section (2) of Section 25(O) deserves to be quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to provide a copy of the study conducted by Indian Bureau of Mine to all the four Unions and afford them opportunity of being heard on the recommendation made by the Indian Bureau of Mines and after giving them opportunity of being heard fresh order with regard to closure of Khetri Copper Mine of Hindustan Copper Limited can be passed. Looking to the urgency of the matter respondents are directed to supply the copy of the study to all the four unions within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. After receipt of the copy of the study all the four Unions are at liberty to submit their objections within the period of 15 days. After receipt of ob-jections within the stipulated period respondents are advised to pass the fresh order with regard to closure of Khetri Copper Mine in accordance with the provisions of law within the period of one month after considering the objection raised by the Unions. Till then subsequent order dated 3.1.2003 asking for voluntary retirement shall be kept in abeyance. Members of Unions are at liberty to move for V.R.S. in accordance with the order dated 3.1.2003 if they choose to seek V.R.S." 8. The counsel for the Union of India and the Hindustan Copper Limited also accept that the present cases are similar. 9. In the facts and circumstances, for the same grounds & reasons as given by the Rajasthan High Court and the decision contained in Memo No. L-42024/53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) dated 2nd January, 2003 having passed in violation of rules of natural justice, the aforesaid decision and consequential orders & decisions are set aside. 9. In the facts and circumstances, for the same grounds & reasons as given by the Rajasthan High Court and the decision contained in Memo No. L-42024/53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) dated 2nd January, 2003 having passed in violation of rules of natural justice, the aforesaid decision and consequential orders & decisions are set aside. The study report conducted by the Indian Bureau of Mines having enclosed with the counter-affidavit of M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited, the petitioners are given liberty to file their objection(s) within one month. The Union of India (Central Government) is given liberty to decide whether it intend to review its earlier decision dated 11th October, 2002 contained in memo No. L-42024/ 53/2002-I.R. (Misc.) or not or whether the matter is required to be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication of the issues after giving opportunity of hearing to all the recognized Unions. 10. Till the final decision is taken, the workmen or members of the Unions be not forced to submit application for voluntarily retirement. However, if one or other individual workman so chooses may ask for voluntary retirement as per V.R Scheme. 11. All the writ petitions stand disposed off with aforesaid observations and directions.