In the bustling, complex world of Indian business, the decision to close an industrial undertaking is never just a business call. It is a full-blown legal saga; a tightrope walks between the fundamental right to run (or shut) a business and the moral and legal obligation to safeguard the livelihoods of workers. For decades, this journey has been governed by a complex and, at times, rigid legal framework, most notably Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
This law, born in a different era of industrial relations, has often been criticised for creating a “rigid exit policy” that could ensnare businesses a maze of bureaucratic processes. Yet, as a recent landmark Supreme Court judgment has reminded us, this isn’t a problem with the law itself, but often with its application. This ruling has not only provided a vital roadmap employers but has also affirmed the state’s role as a vigilant, not a passive, guardian of public interest. It is a story that, while clarifying an old law, perfectly sets the stage for the country’s new legal paradigm, which is designed to strike a balance between economic dynamism and worker welfare.
The journey to legally close an industrial establishment with 100 or more employees begins with a meticulous application to the “appropriate Government”. This application, which must be submitted at least 91 days before the proposed closure date is, not a simple letter of intent. It is a comprehensive dossier, a Form XXIV – C that requires employers to disclose granular details—from their licensed and utilised capacity to their balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for the preceding three years.
The law’s underlying philosophy is clear: closure should be a last resort. The application, therefore, must contain cogent and justifiable reasons” for the closure and must detail “any specific attempt made so far to avoid” it. A vague mention of financial distress is simply not enough. This procedural rigor places the onus on the employer to build a robust, well-documented case from the very beginning. As legal experts have noted, an incomplete application is not a minor administrative error; it’s a failure to provide the government with the necessary facts to perform its statutory duty.
This procedural labyrinth was recently at the heart of a significant case: Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. The case involved a biscuit manufacturer that, after its 32-year job-work agreement with a major client was terminated, was left with no viable business alternative. When the company applied for closure, the state government failed to issue a formal, reasoned order within the prescribed statutory period. The company argued that, under the “deeming fiction” of Section 25- O(3), permission for closure should be considered automatically granted.
A Check on Inaction: The court unequivocally ruled that the “deeming fiction” is not a loophole but a powerful legislative safeguard against bureaucratic delays. It protects an employer’s constitutional right to close a business under Article 19(1)(g) from being frustrated by administrative inaction. The court’s message was clear: the government’s failure to act within the statutory timeline triggers an automatic approval.
Holding the State Accountable: The ruling clarified that a request for more information from a junior official does not constitute a valid, “reasoned order” as required by law. This holds the government to a high standard of administrative transparency and due process.
Balancing Rights: While upholding the company’s right to closure, the court did not lose sight of the human side of the dispute. It acknowledged the hardship faced by the 178 workers and, in a move of judicial equity, enhanced the compensation for them, directing the employer to pay `15 crores in addition to their statutory dues. This demonstrates that while the law may permit a closure, the responsibility to the workforce remains paramount.
This judicial affirmation of the old law comes at a time when a new legislative framework, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, is on the horizon. The central goal of this new code is to promote “ease of doing business” by simplifying and modernising India’s labour laws. The most significant change it proposes is a strategic shift in the employee threshold for prior government approval for closure and retrenchment, raising it from the current 100 to 300 employees.
For businesses, this move is a welcome change. It promises greater flexibility to restructure and respond to economic headwinds without being bogged down by a bureaucratic process that has been criticised as a “rigid exit policy”. For a large number of medium-sized enterprises, this could be a gamechanger, fostering a more agile and competitive business environment. The new code also introduces a “Reskilling Fund,” which requires employers to contribute 15 days’ wages for every retrenched worker, a step designed to mitigate the social impact of workforce reductions.
Ultimately, the interplay between the recent judicial clarification and the impending legislative reforms points to a central imperative: a more nuanced and balanced approach to industrial relations. True progress hinges on creating a predictable and transparent regulatory environment that allows businesses the agility to navigate market fluctuations and make difficult decisions without facing undue procedural friction. At the same time, the state’s role in mitigating the human impact of these changes is paramount. By strengthening procedural safeguards and building a modern social security framework, India can pursue its economic ambitions while ensuring that the welfare of its workforce is not compromised. It is in this harmonious coexistence of business dynamism and social responsibility that the nation’s twin goals of “ease of doing business” and inclusive growth will find their most sustainable footing.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
