▁habit ual ▁absence . ▁The ▁Indust rial ▁Dis put es ▁Act ▁( 1 9 4 7 ) ▁requires ▁companies ▁employ ing ▁more ▁than ▁ 1 0 0 ▁workers ▁to ▁seek ▁government ▁appro val ▁before ▁they ▁can ▁fire ▁employees ▁or ▁close ▁down . ▁In ▁practice , ▁permissions ▁for ▁firing ▁employees ▁are ▁s eld om ▁granted . ▁Indian ▁laws ▁require ▁a ▁company ▁to ▁get ▁permission ▁for ▁dismiss ing ▁workers ▁with ▁plant ▁closing , ▁even ▁if ▁it ▁is ▁necessary ▁for ▁economic ▁reasons . ▁The ▁government ▁may ▁grant ▁or ▁den y ▁permission ▁for ▁closing , ▁even ▁if ▁the ▁company ▁is ▁losing ▁money ▁on ▁the ▁operation . ▁ ▁The ▁dismiss ed ▁worker ▁has ▁a ▁right ▁to ▁appeal , ▁even ▁if ▁the ▁government ▁has ▁granted ▁the ▁dismiss al ▁application . ▁Indian ▁labour ▁reg ulations ▁provide ▁for ▁a ▁number ▁of ▁appeal ▁and ▁adj ud ic ating ▁authorities ▁– ▁conc ili ation ▁officers , ▁conc ili ation ▁bo ards , ▁courts ▁of ▁inqu iry , ▁labour ▁courts , ▁industrial ▁trib un als ▁and ▁the ▁national ▁industrial ▁trib unal ▁– ▁under ▁the ▁Indust rial ▁Dis put es ▁Act . ▁These ▁involve ▁complex ▁procedures . ▁Bey ond ▁these ▁labour ▁appeal ▁and ▁adj ud ic ating ▁procedures , ▁the ▁case ▁can ▁proceed ▁to ▁respective ▁State ▁High ▁Court ▁or ▁finally ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁of ▁India . ▁ ▁B har at ▁For ge ▁Co ▁Ltd ▁v ▁U tt am ▁Man oh ar ▁Nak ate ▁[ 2 0 0 5 ] ▁IN SC ▁ 4 5 , ▁a ▁worker ▁found ▁sleep ing ▁for ▁the ▁fourth ▁time ▁in