AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Misra J.-All parties served, none except Respondent 9 appears in person.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent 9 who is appearing in person. The present review has been filed mainly on the ground that this Court in its order dated 31-3-1998 has recorded the fact which is not borne out from the record. The relevant portion of the decision of this Court is quoted hereunder:
"After hearing counsel on both sides for some time, we felt that one of the issues that has to be decided in this case is whether the closure of a unit in an industry will amount to closure or it will amount to only retrenchment of workmen. This issue can be satisfactorily argued and decided while deciding the question whether the closure of the industry itself is legal or not which is pending before the Gujarat High Court."
As the Court was informed then by the learned counsel that the matter is pending in the High Court, the said observation was made. We are informed today and it is also recorded in the review petitions that no matter is pending in the High Court, hence this Court fell into error in view of the wrong information supplied at the time of hearing of these petitions itself.
In view of this, we feel it appropriate, in the interest of justice to recall/review our order dated 31-3-1998. Let these appeals be placed at their original numbers for being heard afresh. This case need not be listed as part-heard. Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed. Any ad interim order passed by this Court in these matters is hereby vacated.