https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198488 The right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) was treated as including the lesser and negative right to close an undertaking, subject to lawful public-interest restriction. Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act was held to impose an unreasonable restraint because it required prior approval for closure, allowed refusal on vague standards, lacked recorded reasons, appeal or review, and exposed the employer to penal consequences; Section 25-R was invalid to that extent. Article 31C did not save the provisions, as the amendment was not applied retrospectively to validate a law unconstitutional when enacted. The closure-control regime was therefore struck down as an excessive restraint on business freedom. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:13:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198488 The right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) was treated as including the lesser and negative right to close an undertaking, subject to lawful public-interest restriction. Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act was held to impose an unreasonable restraint because it required prior approval for closure, allowed refusal on vague standards, lacked recorded reasons, appeal or review, and exposed the employer to penal consequences; Section 25-R was invalid to that extent. Article 31C did not save the provisions, as the amendment was not applied retrospectively to validate a law unconstitutional when enacted. The closure-control regime was therefore struck down as an excessive restraint on business freedom. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198488