logo
SC allows manufacturing unit's closure, orders ₹15 cr ex-gratia for workers

SC allows manufacturing unit's closure, orders ₹15 cr ex-gratia for workers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the closure of a unit manufacturing biscuits for Britannia Industries Limited (BIL) for over three decades by overruling a Bombay High Court verdict.
Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the verdict on an appeal of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd (HSML) against the high court's February 17, 2023 order.
While HSML initially offered Rs 10 crore as a goodwill gesture to its employees, the court enhanced this amount to Rs 15 crore and ordered its payment within eight weeks.
Considering that some of the employees may be, with the closure of this concern, losing the only job they have known and still others would be, for no fault of their own, rendered unemployed, we appreciate the gesture made by HSML. Such a statement is taken on record," the court said.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for HSML, had left it to the court to decide on the enhancement.
We deem it just and proper to further enhance the appellants' offer by a sum of Rs 5 crore, thus, making it Rs 15 crore instead of Rs 10 crore, as mentioned in our order... Let the amount be released forthwith, as per their entitlement, in favour of the employees and, in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date of the judgment, it said.
HSML was engaged in biscuit manufacturing exclusively for BIL for over three decades under successive job work agreements and the latest agreement of May 22, 2007 was terminated by BIL with effect from November 20, 2019, following a six-month notice period.
In response, HSML applied for closure of its operations under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitting the application on August 28, 2019, and notifying its workers shortly thereafter.
The case reached the Bombay High Court through petitions after the Maharashtra State Government allegedly failed to respond to the closure application within the statutory period.
The state government said that a letter of September 25, 2019, amounted to a refusal of permission.
HSML contended that the delay triggered the deemed approval clause under the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Justice Karol, who authored the verdict, considered whether the state government's communication of September 25, 2019, qualified as a valid refusal order under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The bench also dealt with the question whether the deputy secretary, who issued the communication, was legally empowered to do so.
The verdict ruled in favour of HSML and held that the letter of September 25, 2019 did not constitute a valid or reasoned order of refusal as mandated by law.
The deputy secretary, it held, was not the 'appropriate government' under the Act, and had no authority to seek resubmission or revision of the closure application.
The bench then held since no valid order was passed within 60 days of the application, permission to close must be deemed granted, effective from October 27, 2019.
We hold that the application dated August 28, 2019 was complete in all respects, and the 60-day period for the deemed closure to take effect would be calculable from said date," it said.
Secondly, the deputy secretary was not the appropriate government who could have asked HSML to revise and resubmit the application for closure as the authority was only vested with the minister concerned, it said. "The minister did not, even in the slightest, consider the merits of the matter independently, much less with or without any application of mind. Subdelegation to the officer was not permitted by law, and, therefore, any communication made by him would be without any legal sanction, the verdict said.
The bench reiterated the constitutional right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) and closures must still adhere to statutory procedures that safeguard public interest and employee rights.
The bench acknowledged the humanitarian aspect of the case and appreciated HSML's willingness to provide additional compensation.
The amount was ordered to be disbursed among the affected employees within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In 2019, Rs 50K was gold and now it can't pay rent: CA explains why most are struggling, not 'surviving' in urban cities
In 2019, Rs 50K was gold and now it can't pay rent: CA explains why most are struggling, not 'surviving' in urban cities

Economic Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

In 2019, Rs 50K was gold and now it can't pay rent: CA explains why most are struggling, not 'surviving' in urban cities

Synopsis Chartered Accountant Nitin Kaushik has warned that in 2025, earning less than Rs 50,000 a month in metros like Bengaluru, Mumbai, or Pune means barely covering basic expenses. He says rent alone swallows 40-60% of income, with essentials and lifestyle costs doubling in three years. Bengaluru's prime-area rents have surged up to 100% since 2022. Kaushik estimates singles need Rs 20-30 lakh annually for comfort, families Rs 40-50 lakh. Even Rs 1 lakh earners struggle, prompting his call for upskilling, smart budgeting, and early investment. TIL Creatives Representative AI Image Living in India's largest cities has become a battle to stay afloat. Chartered Accountant Nitin Kaushik says that in 2025, a monthly income below Rs 50,000 in Bengaluru, Mumbai, or Pune means 'barely breaking even' rather than on X, he warned that rents alone consume 40-60% of many urban salaries. Add transport, food, and utilities, and there is little left over. 'Living in a metro today without a strong salary equals financial pressure 24x7,' Kaushik wrote. — Finance_Bareek (@Finance_Bareek) Bengaluru, long considered India's tech capital, has seen one of the sharpest rent hikes. Kaushik pointed out that in prime neighbourhoods, one-bedroom flats that cost around Rs 18,000 a month in early 2022 now exceed Rs 30,000. That is an increase of 70-100%.He linked the rise to several factors — the return to office after COVID, a wave of job relocations, and growing real estate demand from NRIs and investors. Kaushik also highlighted that the price of essentials such as food, energy, and transport has stayed high. Combined with lifestyle spending, this has made metro living nearly twice as expensive as it was just three years ago. For those hoping to live comfortably, Kaushik estimates that in 2025, a single person in Bengaluru would need a CTC of Rs 20-30 lakh a year. For a family with one child, that figure rises to Rs 40-50 lakh, which he says would cover good housing, schooling, leisure, and savings. Kaushik warned that even households earning Rs 1 lakh a month are often stuck living paycheck to paycheck due to lifestyle expenses. His advice is direct: upskill to increase income, manage rent and commuting costs, start investing early, and look beyond headline salaries to focus on take-home pay after adjusting for living summed up the shift bluntly: 'Your Rs 50K/month in 2019 was gold. In 2025, it barely pays rent.'

Supreme Court reserves verdict on JSW Steel's Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power
Supreme Court reserves verdict on JSW Steel's Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power

Economic Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Supreme Court reserves verdict on JSW Steel's Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power

Synopsis The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on JSW Steel's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel. Key issues include the allocation of earnings generated during the resolution period and JSW's compliance with the plan. Former promoters challenged JSW's actions, while the creditors seek additional funds. The Solicitor General criticized the former promoters, alleging significant financial misconduct. iStock The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas related to JSW Steel's Rs 19,700-crore resolution plan for debt-ridden Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL). A special bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran heard arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the committee of creditors (CoC), senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul for JSW Steel, and senior advocate Dhruv Mehta for the former promoters before reserving the verdict. As many as five pleas were heard afresh after the CJI-led bench, on July 31, recalled its May 2 verdict that had directed liquidation of BPSL and set aside JSW's resolution plan, criticising the conduct of the CoC, the resolution professional, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for what it termed a "flagrant violation" of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). One of the key issues was whether earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) generated during the resolution period should go to the creditors or remain with the company. The CoC is seeking Rs 3,569 crore in EBITDA and Rs 2,500 crore in delay-related interest. Kaul, representing JSW, the successful resolution applicant, said neither the request for resolution plan (RFRP) nor the resolution plan itself mandated sharing EBITDA with creditors. He said JSW bid for BPSL on an "as is, where is" basis, accepting both its losses and profits, and that the delay in plan implementation was due to the ED's asset attachment, which was lifted only in December 2024. Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the former promoters, challenged JSW's compliance with the resolution plan and defended their right to participate in the proceedings, citing their role as personal guarantors. He alleged that JSW failed to inject the promised working capital and accused the company of benefitting from rising steel prices before implementing the plan. He also contended that the CoC's powers do not extend beyond plan approval by the NCLT and that disputes over non-compliance should be taken back to the tribunal. The solicitor general Mehta described the former promoters as having "brought the company to dust" and called this "one of the worst cases of siphoning" he had seen. He maintained that the CoC's claims over EBITDA and delay interest were justified and that the body remained a legal entity until the Supreme Court's final decision under Section 62 of the IBC. Earlier on August 8, the COC had opposed the plea by former promoters by questioning the maintainability. A bench headed by former top court judge Bela M Trivedi on May 2 ordered liquidation of BPSL while setting aside a resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited for the ailing firm. PTI

India's R&D deficit: Just where are the scientists?
India's R&D deficit: Just where are the scientists?

India Today

time31 minutes ago

  • India Today

India's R&D deficit: Just where are the scientists?

(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated August 18, 2025)Nobel laureates and physicists Duncan Haldane and David Gross have just pointed out a huge mismatch: India has the talent, but is not benefitting because there's not enough funds for scientific research. Speaking at the Quantum India Summit in Bengaluru on July 31, Gross, who chairs an advisory board at the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences here, says India's lack of investment in R&D doesn't bode GDP is up, but its contribution to 'investments to the future', which will drive new technologies and industries, is low. In 2009, India's R&D spend was 0.84 per cent of GDP; it fell to 0.64 per cent by 2021 and is estimated to be 0.7 per cent in 2025. This is much less than what the US (3.5 per cent) and China (2.4 per cent) Rs 1 lakh crore Research Development and Innovation (RDI) fund, announced in this year's budget, should help. It will be operationalised this year, with Rs 20,000 crore already allocated. The Anusandhan National Research Foundation, launched last year, also has a fund, but will primarily invest in academic research and research labs. The RDI fund is meant for private sector R&D, with its Deep Tech Fund 1.0 focusing on strategic autonomy in critical sectors like clean energy and advanced materials. Last year, India was ranked 39th in the Global Innovation Index of 133 countries, up one spot from 2023. The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers per million people in India is 255, abysmal when compared to the USA (4,452), China (1,307), Korea (7,980), and far below the global average of 1,198. The trend of fewer FTE researchers and minimal spends points to an underlying crisis in the R&D sector. As one researcher at the summit put it: 'Cutting-edge research is so fast; if we lose the first few years [due to cost-cutting], we are behind our colleagues abroad already.'Subscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store