Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner before this Court is the cement Corporation Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as petitioner-union), a registered workers union of Cement corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent-company ). It has assailed an order dated July 14, 2008, Annexure p-16, passed by the Central Government, vide which, the permission under Section 25-O of industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act)has been granted to close down its seven units/undertakings, including a Cement Factory at Nayagaon in State of Madhya Pradesh. The notice of closure dated July 28, 2008, Annexure p-17 issued by the respondent-company, as a consequence thereof, has also been challenged. Facts. ( 2. ) CEMENT Corporation of India Ltd. , respondent-company is a public sector company under the administrative control of ministry of Heavy Industries and Public enterprises, Government of India. The company was incorporated, primarily, for production of cement and sale thereof. After incorporation, it expanded its operation and in the year 1996, it owned 12 units at different places in the Country. However, at some point of time, it started suffering losses. Its net worth started eroding. ( 3. ) THE respondent-company, invoked the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short SICA ). A reference petition was filed before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR ). An order dated August 8, 1996 was passed, whereby the respondent-company was declared to be a sick industrial company. FICI was appointed as an Operating Agency. In the subsequent proceedings, BIFR directed the operating Agency to prepare a Draft rehabilitation Scheme (DRS), keeping in view the liabilities of the company, as well as mode of envisaged settlements etc. BIFR also directed sale of one of industrial units viz. Yerrauntla plant of the company. Consequently, the aforesaid plant was sold to India Cement limited at a consideration of Rs. 200. 70 crores. In these circumstances, after sale of the said plant, the company owned eleven Industrial units. ( 4. ) IT may be noticed that when the proceedings were initiated before the BIFR, by the respondent-company, except three units of bokajan, Rajban and Tandur, all other industrial units were non-operating units and have continued to be so. 200. 70 crores. In these circumstances, after sale of the said plant, the company owned eleven Industrial units. ( 4. ) IT may be noticed that when the proceedings were initiated before the BIFR, by the respondent-company, except three units of bokajan, Rajban and Tandur, all other industrial units were non-operating units and have continued to be so. It further appears from the record that in March 2001, the Operating agency reported to BIFR that the company was not serious in reviving itself and as such its losses were increasing day by day. This led bifr to pass an order dated November 2, 2001, requiring the company to show cause as to why the winding up proceedings be not initiated against it. The matter appears to have continued before BIFR in the aforesaid proceedings. From time-to-time, many other directions appear to have been issued. ( 5. ) HOWEVER, in the year 2004, the respondent-company submitted a proposal for its revival, inter alia, envisaging closure of seven non-operating units and operation of three operational units, at Bokajan, Rajban and tandur, after modernization/expansion of the installed capacity. On the aforesaid proposal of the respondent-company, BIFR directed the operating Agency to draw a suitable rehabilitation scheme, since the Government of india had shown its interest for inducting funds. ( 6. ) A Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS)was prepared by Operating Agency and the same was circulated by BIFR, inviting objections/suggestions. After considering the objections/suggestions received by it, an order dated March 21, 2006 was passed by BIFR approving the said DRS (rehabilitation scheme), which envisaged revival of three operating units, by inducting funds out of sale proceeds of seven non operating units. The aforesaid seven non-opef ating units are situated at Charkhi Dadri, Nayagaon, Adilabad, akaltara, Mandhar, Kurkunta, Bhatinda, yerraguntla and Delhi Grinding Unit. ( 7. ) THE aforesaid order dated March 21, 2006 passed by BIFR was challenged by the employees of Nayagaon and Adilabad Units by preferring appeals before the Appellate authority for Industrial and Financial reconstruction (in short AAIFR ). Originally, an order dated July 3, 2006 was passed by aaifr directing the maintenance of status quo. However, later on, after hearing all the concerned parties, the said appeals were dismissed by the AAIFR, vide order dated november 17, 2006. ( 8. Originally, an order dated July 3, 2006 was passed by aaifr directing the maintenance of status quo. However, later on, after hearing all the concerned parties, the said appeals were dismissed by the AAIFR, vide order dated november 17, 2006. ( 8. ) THE two workers unions of Nayagaon cement factory and Adilabad cement factory filed two separate writ petitions challenging the orders dated November 17, 2006 before the delhi High Court. A third writ petition was filed by the employees union of Delhi Grinding Unit. In the aforesaid writ petitions, the closure of seven industrial units of the respondent-company, as permitted by BIFR and as upheld by AAIFR, was assailed. Various pleas were raised. It was also maintained that neither in law, nor on facts, the said closure of the industrial units, envisaged in the said rehabilitation package, was justified. ( 9. ) THE respondent-company contested the aforesaid writ petitions before Delhi High court. It detailed out the entire background and the circumstances, which had developed, compelling it to close seven of its industrial units. ( 10. ) THROUGH a judgment dated January 11, 2008, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed all the aforesaid three writ petitions. The proposal to close seven industrial units, except three operating units at Bokajan, Rajban and Tandur was up held. A copy of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, between the workers union of the company (including the workers union of Nayagaon plant) and the respondent-company is available on record as annexure R-3/5, with the reply filed by respondent No. 3. ( 11. ) THE aforesaid judgment was still challenged by the aforesaid workers unions by filing Special Leave Petitions before the supreme Court of India. However, the aforesaid special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the apex Court vide order dated April 28, 2008 (Annexure R-3/6 ). ( 12. ) TO complete the narration of facts, it may be pertinent to notice that at the time when the controversy was pending before Delhi High court with regard to the orders passed by the bifr/aaifr, an application under Section 25-O of the Act was filed by the respondent-company before the appropriate government, seeking permission to order closure of the aforesaid seven industrial units of the company, which had been so ordered by the bifr and approved by AAIFR. However, an order dated March 29, 2007 was passed by the government of India, whereby keeping in view the fact that an interim order had been passed by delhi High Court, directing the maintenance of status quo, the respondent-company was informed that keeping in view the said interim orders, the permission of Government of India could not be granted for closure of the units of the company namely Akaltara, Mandhar, adilabad, Delhi Cement Grinding Unit/ bhatinda Grinding Unit, Nayagaon (MP), kurkunta and Charkhi Dadri. However, the respondent-company was granted a liberty to approach the Government, yet again, in the matter, under sub-section 5 of Section 25-O of the Act, as and when, the stay order was vacated or the matter was disposed of by Delhi High court. A copy of the aforesaid communication has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. ( 13. ) AS noticed above, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court had dismissed the writ petitions vide judgment dated January 11, 2008. Thereafter, in terms of the liberty granted by the government of India, the respondent-company moved an application before the Government of india on February 12, 2008. A prayer for review of the order dated March 29, 2007 was sought, with regard to the closure of seven non operating units of the company. An order dated march 25/27, 2008 was communicated by the government of India to the company, whereby the permission to close the aforesaid seven units was granted, in terms of Section 25-O of the act. A copy of the aforesaid permission order has been appended as Annexure P-4 with the petition. ( 14. ) IT further appears from the record that various workers unions of the company again sought to challenge the aforesaid orders dated march 25/27, 2008 before Delhi High Court. The primary grievance raised by the workers union appears to be that the aforesaid permission had been granted by the government without affording an opportunity of hearing to the workers unions, and behind their back. On the aforesaid limited grievance raised by the workers unions, the Government of India, took up a stand before the Delhi High court that a fresh hearing would take place and a fresh order would be passed. The aforesaid offer made on behalf of the Government of india was even accepted by the workers unions. Consequently, the order dated March 25/27, 2007 was set aside. The aforesaid offer made on behalf of the Government of india was even accepted by the workers unions. Consequently, the order dated March 25/27, 2007 was set aside. The matter was to be decided afresh, as noticed above. The two orders passed by Delhi High Court on May 5, 2008 and May 9, 2008, in two separate writ petitions, filed by two separate unions, have been appended as Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively, with the present writ petition. ( 15. ) IT also appears from the record that in terms of the understanding before Delhi High court, proceedings were re-commenced before the Central Government. In support of their respective claims, pleas were raised by the workers unions, as well as the company. However, an order dated July 14, 2008 has been passed by the Competent Authority, where by the respondent-company has been granted permission for closure of its seven units namely akaltara, Mandhar, Adilabad, Delhi Cement grinding Unit/bhatinda Grinding Unit, nayagaon (MP), Kurkunta and Charkhi Dadri. A copy of the aforesaid order dated July 14, 2008 has been appended as Annexure P-16 with the petition. As a consequence of the aforesaid permission granted to the respondent-company to close the aforesaid seven industrial units, a notice of closure dated July 28, 2008, has been issued by it with regard to the aforesaid seven industrial units. The aforesaid notice has been appended as Annexure, P-17 with the petition. It is in this manner that the petitioner-union has challenged the aforesaid orders annexures P-l6 and P-17 through the present petition. ( 16. ) THE claim made by the petitioner-Union has been contested by respondent-company. Besides filing a short reply to oppose the interim relief, a detailed reply, accompanied by various documents, has been filed. The entire background leading to closure of the units has been detailed. Initiation of proceedings before BIFR and continuation thereof, the orders passed by BIFR and AAIFR, order dated january 11, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and also the rejection of special Leave Petitions filed by the workers unions by the Apex Court, have been specifically relied upon. The respondent-company has maintained that, in fact, the matter stood almost finalized with regard to the closure of seven industrial units in the proceedings before BIFR. The respondent-company has maintained that, in fact, the matter stood almost finalized with regard to the closure of seven industrial units in the proceedings before BIFR. While approving the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme, it had directed that except the three units of the company, which were operational, the remaining seven units were to be closed. The aforesaid order passed by BIFR was even upheld by AAIFR. The respondent-company has also relied upon the Division Bench judgment, Annexure R-3/5 dated January 11, 2008, when the aforesaid orders passed by BIFR and AAIFR were upheld, and even the Special Leave Petitions filed by the workers unions were rejected by the apex Court. ( 17. ) BESIDES the aforesaid fact, the respondent-company has placed strong reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of Punjab and haryana High Court in C. C. I. Cement Factory mens Union and Others v. Government of india and Others C. W. P. No. 9108 of 2008 decided on October 23, 2008. A copy of the said judgment has been produced before this Court at the time of hearing and it has been informed that in the said writ petition, three workers unions, of the respondent-company of its industrial plant at Charkhi Dadri, had challenged the order dated July 14, 2008 (which is the order impugned in the present petition ). However, the Division Bench had rejected the said challenge and dismissed the said writ petition. On that basis, it has been maintained by the respondent-company that the validity of the order dated July 14, 2008, Annexure P-l6, being impugned in the present writ petition, having already been upheld by a Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a controversy between the company and its workers unions, the said controversy cannot be raised, all over again, by the petitioner-union. I have heard Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-union and Shri g. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel for the respondent-company and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. ( 18. ) SHRI S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-union, during the course of arguments, has reiterated the various pleas raised by the petitioner-union in the petition. By way of elaboration, the learned senior counsel has raised the following contentions. ( 18. ) SHRI S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-union, during the course of arguments, has reiterated the various pleas raised by the petitioner-union in the petition. By way of elaboration, the learned senior counsel has raised the following contentions. (i) The impugned order Annexure P-16 had been passed by the Central Government, exercising its powers of review under Section 25-O (5) of the Act and since the original order passed under Section 25-O (4) of the Act was to remain in force only for a period of one year, and since an order rejecting the prayer of the respondent-company seeking permission to close the seven industrial units was passed on march 29, 2007, Annexure P-3, therefore, the order of review, Annexure P-16, was clearly barred by limitation, having been passed beyond the period of one year. The learned senior counsel maintains that since the original order Annexure P-3 had itself a life span of one year, the said order could not be reviewed after the expiry of one year. (ii) Delhi High Court, while disposing of the earlier challenge raised by the workers union, through orders Annexures P-5 and P-6, had accepted a concession given by the government of India that the matter of closure would be re-considered, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, by the Additional Secretary, Labour and employment. A grievance has been raised that the impugned order, Annexure P-16, had been passed by the Director only, and therefore, could not be treated to be in terms of the said directions of Delhi High Court. (iii) The impugned order, Annexure P-16, is a non-speaking order, in as much as, no reasons have been indicated for granting permission for closure. The learned senior counsel has referred to para 11 of the order annexure P-16 and contends that the only reason indicated therein was the justification offered in para 4 of the said order, which in turn merely referred to the earlier order dated March 27, 2008, which had been set aside by Delhi High Court. (iv) Various applications had been filed by the petitioner-union in the proceedings before the Central Government, but the said applications have remained un-decided. On that basis, the learned senior counsel contends that the impugned order Annexure P-16, is clearly liable to be set aside, having not followed the due procedure. ( 19. (iv) Various applications had been filed by the petitioner-union in the proceedings before the Central Government, but the said applications have remained un-decided. On that basis, the learned senior counsel contends that the impugned order Annexure P-16, is clearly liable to be set aside, having not followed the due procedure. ( 19. ) ON the other hand, Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel for respondent-company, has very vehemently refuted all the aforesaid contentions. Shri chaphekar, has pointed out that the petitioner-union, by filing the present petition, was attempting to raise issues, which had already attained finality between the management and its workers. Shri Chaphekar, has also placed strong reliance upon the division Bench judgment of Punjab and haryana High Court between C. C. I. Cement factory Mens Union v. Government of India (supra ). According to the learned senior counsel, the validity of the order dated July. 14, 2008, passed by the Central Government granting permission to close seven industrial units, having already been upheld by a Division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is not open to the petitioner-union to raise a fresh challenge to the said order, on any ground, whatsoever. I have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned senior counsel for the parties and have also considered the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 20. ) THE detailed facts, as noticed above, are in fact not a matter of controversy any further. The background of the controversy depicts that the respondent-company had been suffering huge losses since the year 1996, and was registered as a sick company in the proceedings before BIFR. In the aforesaid proceedings, an Operating Agency was setup under the provisions of SICA, to prepare a rehabilitation scheme. A rehabilitation scheme was duly prepared by the Operating Agency. It was envisaged that keeping in view the three operating units at Bokajan, Rajban and Tandur, after modernization/expansion of the installed capacity, the remaining seven non-operating units be closed. The said proposal was duly approved by BIFR, while passing the order dated March 21, 2006. Thus, the seven non-operational units, including the unit at nayagaon (MP), which pertains to the controversy in the present petition, were approved for closure. The aforesaid order of bifr was assailed by the employees of nayagaon and Adilabad units. The said proposal was duly approved by BIFR, while passing the order dated March 21, 2006. Thus, the seven non-operational units, including the unit at nayagaon (MP), which pertains to the controversy in the present petition, were approved for closure. The aforesaid order of bifr was assailed by the employees of nayagaon and Adilabad units. However, the appeals filed by the said workers unions were dismissed by AAIFR, vide order dated november 17, 2006. ( 21. ) NOT only this, the orders of BIFR and aaifr were still challenged by the workers unions, by filing writ petitions before Delhi high Court. It appears that initially an interim order was passed by Delhi High Court, ordering the maintenance of status-quo. However, all the aforesaid writ-petitions was dismissed by the division Bench of Delhi High Court vide judgment dated January 11, 2008. A copy of the judgment of Delhi High Court is available on record as Annexure R-3/5, with the reply of respondent No. 3. In these circumstances, for all practical purposes, all the pleas of workers unions, such as the petitioner-union, had already been duly considered by BIFR, AAIFR and Delhi High Court. But, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the financial health of the respondent-company, the permission to close its seven industrial units, including the unit at Nayagaon was granted to the respondent-company. A further challenge raised by the workers/unions before the Apex court also failed when the Special Leave petitions filed by them were rejected. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is no more open to the petitioner-union to raise a challenge to the permission of closure granted to the respondent-company through the order Annexure P-16. As a matter of fact, the said controversy stands already settled. The order Annexure P-16, more or less, was a matter of mere formality, under the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. The desirability, or otherwise, of closing the aforesaid seven industrial units, had already been examined by the BIFR, AAIFR and Delhi High Court and had attained finality. ( 22. The order Annexure P-16, more or less, was a matter of mere formality, under the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. The desirability, or otherwise, of closing the aforesaid seven industrial units, had already been examined by the BIFR, AAIFR and Delhi High Court and had attained finality. ( 22. ) COMING to the specific contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner-union, it may be noticed that while passing the order dated March 29, 2007, annexure P-3, although the Central government had refused the permission to the company to close its seven industrial units, but a perusal of the said order also reveals that the said permission was declined, merely on account of the fact that some interim directions were operative, issued by Delhi High Court, wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo. In the face of the aforesaid interim orders, the Central Government could not have proceeded any further in the matter in issuance of the requisite permission. However, the order annexure P-3, further reveals that a liberty was granted to the respondent-company to approach the Government, yet again, by way of review under Section 25-6 (5) of the Act, as and when, the interim order was vacated by Delhi High court or the matter was finally disposed of. In these circumstances, on disposal of the controversy by Delhi High Court, vide judgment dated January 11, 2008 Annexure r-3/5, the respondent-company filed a review petition before the Central Government. The said review petition was, in fact, in terms of the liberty granted to the management, vide earlier order Annexure P-3, and therefore, the question of computing the limitation period of one year from the original order dated March 29, 2007, for filing a review petition, would not even arise. If the order dated March 29, 2007 is construed in correct perspective, the same was, in fact, a deferment of the consideration of the request made by respondent-company, seeking permission of closure. As a matter of fact, the order dated July 14, 2008, cannot be treated to be an order of review, stricto-senso. Thus, the objection raised by the petitioner-union with regard to the order Annexure P-16, being barred by limitation, is absolutely without any basis. ( 23. As a matter of fact, the order dated July 14, 2008, cannot be treated to be an order of review, stricto-senso. Thus, the objection raised by the petitioner-union with regard to the order Annexure P-16, being barred by limitation, is absolutely without any basis. ( 23. ) A grievance has been raised that although Delhi High Court, while passing the orders Annexures P-5 and P-6, on a concession offered by the Central Government, had envisaged a hearing by the Additional Secretary of Labour and Employment, but the impugned order Annexure P-16 had been passed by the director. On that basis, it has been maintained that the order had been passed by an authority, who was not the Competent Authority, within the parameters of the order of Delhi High Court (Annexures P-5 and P-6 ). ( 24. ) I have gone through the impugned order, Annexure P-16, in this regard. I have also perused the pleadings in the petition. However, i find that neither any objection with regard to the competence or jurisdiction of the Director had been taken by the petitioner-union in the proceedings before him, nor any such plea has been raised by it in the present petition, therefore, the said objection raised by learned senior counsel, to the competence of the director, respondent No. 2, cannot be permitted to be raised during the course of arguments. ( 25. ) EVEN otherwise, I find that the order annexure P-16 has noticed the background of the controversy. Various objections/pleas raised by the petitioner-union have been duly commented upon in the said order. The only grievance, which the petitioner-union had raised before the Delhi High Court, against an earlier order dated March 27, 2007, was that the said order was ex parts and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-union. It was in these circumstances that Delhi High court had, on a concession being offered by the central Government, quashed the said order dated March 27, 2008, with a liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The said opportunity of hearing has been duly provided by the competent authority, while passing the order annexure P-16. Consequently, the grievance made by the petitioner-union with regard to the non-competence of the authority passing the said order, is absolutely without any basis. ( 26. The said opportunity of hearing has been duly provided by the competent authority, while passing the order annexure P-16. Consequently, the grievance made by the petitioner-union with regard to the non-competence of the authority passing the said order, is absolutely without any basis. ( 26. ) THE third objection raised by the petitioner-union is that the order Annexure p-16 is a non-reasoned order. After having perused the impugned order Annexure P-16, minutely, I do not subscribe to the grievance raised by the petitioner-union. In this regard, it may be noticed that the order Annexure P-16 traces out the entire background of the controversy. The huge losses suffered by the respondent-company, and its financial position, have been duly taken note of. Although in para 11 of the impugned order, after dealing with various other objections of the petitioner-union, it has been recited that "as regards, merits of the case, the reasons in para 4 above bring out the justification in favour of request of the management for closure of seven units of CCI. " In this regard, para 4, may also be extracted below. "the Ministry noted that the concerned 7 units were non-operational for long period ranging between 9 to 11 years after having been in huge losses. The proposal for closure of the 7 units had been made in pursuance to the Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR and subsequently upheld by AAIFR. It was also noted that the honble High Court at Delhi in the order dated January 11, 2008 had gone into the details and had observed that the government of India had taken a conscious decision to close down these unviable units which. was sought to achieve two-fold purpose, viz. , not only to get rid of the unviable units which are adding to mounting losses, at the same time utilize the fund generated from the sale of those units to make running units viable. With this process at least 3 units, which are operational, have good chance to become profitable and because of this reason, the company will revive and shall not be forced to wind up. Having regard to the documents filed and the submissions made during the hearing held in the Ministry on March 9, 2007, the ministry vide order dated March 27, 2008 granted permission for closure of the said of units of CCI viz. Having regard to the documents filed and the submissions made during the hearing held in the Ministry on March 9, 2007, the ministry vide order dated March 27, 2008 granted permission for closure of the said of units of CCI viz. , Mandhar, Kurkunta, akaltara, Charkhi Dadri, \adilabad, nayagaon and Delhi Cement Grinding unit/bhatinda Grinding Unit with effect from the date of issue of the Order. " ( 27. ) IT is thus apparent that the competent authority, while passing the aforesaid order, annexure P-16, was conscious of the fact that the seven units of the company was non-operational for a long period between 9 to 11 years and had suffered huge losses. The rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by BIFR and subsequently upheld by AAIFR were also taken note of. The detailed judgment of Delhi High court dated January 11, 2008 had also been duly considered. Thus, it cannot be suggested, at all, that the order Annexure P-16 has been passed by the Central Government without application of mind, and without giving justifiable reasons. The objection raised by the petitioner-union in this regard is also liable to be over-ruled. ( 28. ) THE last submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-union pertains to a grievance that various applications filed before the Central Government, such as annexures P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-13 had remained undecided. I have gone through the aforesaid applications. As a matter of fact, as noticed above, the grant of permission under section 25-O of the Act to the respondent-company, with regard to its seven industrial units, was more or less a matter of formality, the matter having already been examined in deeper details in earlier litigation up to the Apex Court. It is apparent that by filing repeated and successive applications, the petitioner-union merely wanted to delay and stall the grant of permission. A perusal of the impugned order annexure P-16, clearly reflects that various pleas raised by the petitioner-union have been duly dealt with by the Central Government. ( 29. ) IT may also be relevant to reiterate, as noticed earlier, that the validity of the impugned order dated July, 14, 2008, Annexure P-16, has already been upheld by a Division Bench of punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 9108 of 2008, decided on October 23, 2008. ( 29. ) IT may also be relevant to reiterate, as noticed earlier, that the validity of the impugned order dated July, 14, 2008, Annexure P-16, has already been upheld by a Division Bench of punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 9108 of 2008, decided on October 23, 2008. The aforesaid writ petition had been filed by three workers union of the respondent-company of its industrial unit at Charkhi-Dadri, haryana. In these circumstances, once the validity of the aforesaid closure order, qua the seven industrial units had been upheld between the management and its workers, by a Division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, it would be almost inappropriate for this Court to even open the said controversy, all over again. ( 30. ) AT this stage, certain observations made by Delhi High Court in the order dated january 11, 2008, Annexure R 3/5, may be extracted with advantage. "14. If one has regard to the aforesaid considerations, merely on the ipsi dixit of the petitioners that because of the alleged change in the scenario insofar as cement industry in the country is concerned, it is not possible to give a complete go-by and start the process afresh. We say so because of the following additional circumstances which are apparent in the present case: (a) Seven plants in respect of which decision is taken to sell the same became, non-operative between June 1996 and february 1999 due to heavy losses. Therefore, these are not in operation for last number of years; (b) The three units, which are operational, need modernization/expansion to make them viable. This requires funds; (c) Apart from Rs. 184. 29 crores which the government of India has agreed to invest, there is need for further substantial amount for the modernization/expansion of these units. This money can be generated by sale of seven units; (d) The decision to close seven nonoperating units was based on the technoeconomic feasibility. The Consultants after conducting indepth study analysis had formed their opinion that the seven non-operating units were not viable for the following reasons: (a) The units are lying non-operational for a considerable period of time as such plant and machinery had become old and obsolete. (b) The capacity utilisation of those units were very low; (c) These units never had operational profits. (d) Cost of production in those units was higher than the selling price. (b) The capacity utilisation of those units were very low; (c) These units never had operational profits. (d) Cost of production in those units was higher than the selling price. (e) All the seven non-operational units require major up gradation, which is non feasible. (f) The losses suffered by the 7 non-operational units till 2004-05 runs to the tune of Rs. 1828. 11 crores as under: 15. Apart from the above, if these units are not closed and sold off, there is a recurring liability. In addition, the company has been paying idle wages for these units. In respect of Nayagaon and Adilabad units alone there are losses of more than Rs. 150 and Rs. 113 crores respectively. Idle wages paid to the workers, ever since these units became non-operative are to the tune of Rs. 26. 70 and Rs. 27. 21 crores till March 2, 2006. Keeping in view all these considerations, the government of India had taken a conscious decision for closing these unviable units. 16. The AAIFR also found that the object behind setting up of Nayagaon unit also lost with the passage of time since clinkerisation units with 10 lakhs TPA was required along with two split grinding units at Delhi and bhatinda. While clinkerisation at Nayagaon and grinding unit at Delhi commenced commercial production in 1990, Bhatinda unit could not be installed/commissioned on account of non-receipt of environmental clearance. Subsequently, the grinding unit at delhi has also become non-operative, rendering the project at Nayagaon infructuous. 17. It was because of the aforesaid circumstances that a conscious decision was taken by the Government of India to close down these unviable units. The purpose, therefore, sought to be achieved, is two-fold. Not only to get rid of the unviable units which are adding to mounting losses, at the same time utilize the funds generated from the sale of those units to make running units viable. With this process at least three units, which are operational, have good chance to become profitable and because of this reason, the company will revive and shall not be forced to wind up. With this process at least three units, which are operational, have good chance to become profitable and because of this reason, the company will revive and shall not be forced to wind up. Thus, even though it may appear to be harsh to seven units, the move is the only possible solution to save at least other three units as the other alternative was to close all units and wind up the company, which was a tentative opinion formed by the BIFR on an earlier occasion. If that happens, insofar as the petitioners, herein, unions of three units are concerned, they will face closure in either case. 18. We are sitting in judicial review of the orders passed by the BIFR and the AAIFR. The sequence of events narrated above also discloses that these orders are passed after taking into consideration all relevant factors by the experts in the field putting their heads together. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the exercise done by the experts, which is thoroughly gone into by the BIFR before approving the rehabilitation scheme and upheld by the appellate forum. If there is further delay in implementation of such a scheme, it may defeat the very purpose for the employees and may cause incalculable harm which may neither be proper for the employees of the seven units which are facing closure but also for remaining three operating units which see a clear possibility of revival. We, therefore, do not find any merit in any of these petitions and consequently dismiss the same. Since the petitioners are the three unions representing their-workers, we intend not to impose any cost, though we had otherwise inclination to do so. " ( 31. ) BEFORE parting with this order, it may also be noticed that a contention has been raised by Shri Bagadiya, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-union, that the petitioner-union was not a party in the proceedings before Punjab and haryana High Court and therefore, the said judgment cannot be treated to be binding on it. The argument, though appears to be attractive at the first impressions, but on deeper consideration, cannot be accepted. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act describes the persons, on whom settlement and awards, are binding. The argument, though appears to be attractive at the first impressions, but on deeper consideration, cannot be accepted. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act describes the persons, on whom settlement and awards, are binding. Sub-section 3 specifically lays down that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or an arbitration award or an award of Labour Court etc. , is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute. Clause (d) of sub-section 3 further provides that where a party referred to in Clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute, and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part, are also bound by the settlement or the award etc. Thus, although the provisions of Section 18 may not be attracted strictly to the situation in question, but the principles underlying in the said provisions are duly attracted to the present case also. Since the matter of closure of seven industrial units had been assailed by various workers unions of the respondent-company in bifr, AAIFR, Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, the orders/judgments of the said Tribunals/courts are duly binding on the petitioner-union, as well, more so, when another workers union of Nayagaon Industrial unit itself had taken out proceedings before delhi High Court, as well as the Apex Court, and had failed. No other point has been urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.