ORDER : (Per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioners are the Unions of Employees of certain industrial establishments, at Rajahmundry. The 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent seeking permission under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for closure of the industry. Permission was accorded through G.O.Rt.No.774, dated 24.04.1998. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13453 of 1998. According to them, the 2nd respondent-industry is nothing but an organ, or subsidiary of the 3rd respondent and the closure thereof was totally impermissible in law. The said writ petition, together with other writ petitions, was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.04.2003, directing that the dispute be referred to an Industrial Tribunal. In compliance with the direction, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1189, dated 21.06.2003. The said G.O. is challenged in this writ petition. The principal contention urged by the petitioners is that the application for closure of the 2nd respondent, if at all, ought to have been filed only by the 3rd respondent, since it is the principal employer and the reference made through the impugned G.O. without making the 3rd respondent as a party to the dispute, is contrary to the provisions of law. On behalf of the respondents, it is urged that the 2nd respondent is an independent legal entity and for closure thereof, no steps whatever are needed from the 3rd respondent. Heard Sri N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Strictly speaking, the adjudication of the writ petition cannot be undertaken, on account of the fact that the writ petition stood dismissed vis-a-vis respondent Nos.2 and 3, by an order of this Court, dated 23.06.2010, and the said order assumed finality. Be that as it may, an industry, in the context of its being accorded permission, or granted licence, is an independent legal entity. The concept of principal employer and subsidiary employer, does not have any bearing on this aspect. Just as an individual or a company, brings about an industry by obtaining necessary licence, that very person or agency can seek the permission for its closure. Even where such an industry answers the description of principal employer, the participation of the subsidiary employer, or vice-versa, does not become necessary. Just as an individual or a company, brings about an industry by obtaining necessary licence, that very person or agency can seek the permission for its closure. Even where such an industry answers the description of principal employer, the participation of the subsidiary employer, or vice-versa, does not become necessary. The application of the concept of principal and subsidiary employer is limited to the extent of enabling the aggrieved workman to recover the wages or to enforce his rights. When a particular industry seeks its closure, a workman cannot insist that another industry must join the proceedings. At the most, the workmen or the unions can raise an objection as to the accuracy and correctness of the application filed for closure. In other words, if the application filed by the 2nd respondent is defective in any manner, it is always open to the petitioners to point out the same before the Tribunal. The strength of that contention can certainly be assessed by the Tribunal itself. There is no basis to insist that the 3rd respondent must be made a party to the proceedings. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise an objection as to the correctness and accuracy of the application submitted by the 2nd respondent for its closure before the Tribunal itself. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.