HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (BISCUIT DIVISION) & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 04-06-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 427 : 2025 INSC 801
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. 
v. 
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7372 of 2025)
04 June 2025
[Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] 
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether letter dated 25.09.2019 sent by the Deputy Secretary of 
State Government can be construed to be an order - Connectedly, 
whether the appellants would be entitled to the relief of deemed 
closure, as on 27.10.2019 by virtue of the deeming fiction present 
in s. 25-O(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) What would be 
the meaning of the phrase ‘appropriate Government’ and whether 
in the facts of this case, it was the appropriate Government acting 
in the matter of the closure - if not what is the effect in law, thereof.
Headnotes†
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25-O(1), 25-O(3) – Industrial 
Dispute (Maharashtra) Rules, 1957 – r.82-B(1) – Appellant-HSML 
was engaged in biscuit manufacturing exclusively for BIL under 
Job Work Agreements (JWA) – JWA was terminated by BIL – 
Resultantly, applications for closure of business were made 
to the competent authorities on 26.08.2019 – By a letter dated 
25.09.2019 sent by Dy. Secretary, State Government informed 
HSML that they failed to disclose their efforts to prevent 
closure, nor had they given cogent reasons for closure and 
were, therefore, asked to resubmit their application – By way 
of reply dated 10.10.2019, HSML furnished the particulars as 
asked for – It is to be noted that the 60-day period provided for 
u/s. 25-O(3) of the Act ran out on 27.10.2019 – On 04.11.2019, 
HSML was once again asked to resubmit their application 
as authorities found response of HSML lacking – HSML in 
their response contended that by virtue of s.25-O(3), the 
permission of closure is deemed to have been granted  – 
The Deputy Commissioner sent to HSML two letters, dated 
20.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 asking them to be present for a 
meeting on 26.11.2019, and conveying to them that the State 
Government was yet to grant permission for closure – Letters 
* Author
428
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
dated 04.11.2019, 20.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 were challenged 
before High Court – High Court, by the impugned judgment, 
dismissed the writ petitions – Correctness: 
Held: There is nothing on record to show that the Dy. Secretary was 
duly authorised to conduct communication and/or accept or reject 
applications for closure made by industrial units – The concerned 
authority in that regard is only the Minister – There is no express 
authority resting with the Deputy Secretary – Reliance cannot be 
placed on internal noting to establish compliance with procedure – 
s.25-O specifically provides “by order and for reasons to be recorded 
in writing,” and so, reasons are a statutory necessity  – When 
the minister is the sole authority, endorsement of a view taken 
by an undisclosed officer of the Ministry cannot be said to be an 
‘application of mind’ by the competent authority – The decision had 
to be top down and not otherwise – The necessary conclusion is 
that the letter dated 25.09.2019 addressed by the Deputy Secretary 
to HSML cannot be constituted to be an order since such order 
to resubmit the application was without any authority since it was 
not the appropriate Government acting in that regard and not an 
order rejecting or accepting the application – The appropriate 
Government failed to make and communicate any order on the 
application for closure – The deemed closure would, therefore, 
come into effect – In that view of the matter, application dated 
28.08.2019 was complete in all respects, and the 60-day period 
for the deemed closure to take effect would be calculable from 
said date – Also, the Deputy Secretary was not the appropriate 
Government who could have asked HSML to revise and resubmit 
the application for closure – That authority is only vested with the 
Minister concerned. [Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 22]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25-O – Scope of:
Held: i) The right to close the business is subject to the interest 
of the general public; ii) any application seeking permission for 
closure must disclose adequate and genuine reasons which the 
authority has to have regard for; iii) in certain cases, however, even 
if the reasons are genuine and adequate, it does not mean that 
permission to close ought to be granted; iv) if it is found that the 
reasons are generally adequate, and despite that the appr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.