Labournot vs Workmen - A Landmark Judgment or Misinterpretation?

I think Labournot vs Workmen 1960 AIR 929 is often misunderstood. Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 talks about the retrenchment procedure, but in this case, the Supreme Court held that an industrial establishment with 100 or more workers doesn't need prior government permission to close down. Section 25(2)(c) says permission isn't required if the establishment is shut down due to 'exporting or dying nature of the business'. But, I feel the Court's interpretation made this clause too lenient. This judgment has been criticized for undermining the intent behind this provision, which was to safeguard workers' interests. Now, employers might exploit this for cost-cutting or to avoid adhering to retrenchment rules. I'd say this interpretation does more harm than good to the workforce.