JUDGMENT

M. M. DUTT, J.:— This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant, Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., against the order dated September 27, 1972 of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay directing payment of compensation by the appellant to its employees and to some badli workmen for the period from March 24, 1964 to June 10, 1964 (both days inclusive) during which the mill of the appellant had been closed down under circumstances beyond control of the appellant.

2. The appellant is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton textile goods and comes within the purview of the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is not disputed that the mill of the appellant is recognised as an undertaking under Section 11 of the Act. The respondent, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, is the approved, registered and representative union under Section 14 of the Act, representing the employees in the cotton textile industry within the limits of Greater Bombay.

3. It appears that on account of the alleged failure of the appellant to pay the Central Excise duty, certain detention orders were passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise detaining the goods of the appellant like cotton fabrics, cotton yarn and cotton bales lying in the premises of the appellants mill. As a result of the said detention orders, the goods which were essential for the manufacturing process in the appellants mill were detained and, consequently, there was a disruption in the functioning of the appellants mill compelling the appellant to stop the working of the mill. It is not necessary for us to state in detail the proceedings that were taken by the appellant against the said detention orders, but suffice it to say that the detention orders were withdrawn and the appellant started the working of the mill after June 10, 1964.

4. The respondent-Sangh demanded that the employees who were affected by the said closure from March 29, 1964 to June 10, 1964 should be paid their wages for the entire period. As the said demand was not accepted by the appellant, the respondent filed an application before the First Labour Court, Bombay, under Section 79 read with Section 78 of the Act and prayed for the payment of full closure compensation to the employees affected during the aforesaid period.

5. The application of the respondent was opposed by the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that as the closure was due to certain circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation for such closure. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated February 19, 1968 held that the appellant was liable to pay closure compensation to the employees affected at the rate of 50% of the total basic wages and dearness allowance on the ground that such closure amounted to lay-off within the meaning of Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that compensation at the same rate as prescribed by Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, namely 50% of the total wages would be payable to the employees affected by the said closure.

6. The, appellant preferred an appeal against the said order of the Labour Court to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra. The Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and remanded the matter to that Court for a fresh enquiry and finding on the question of liability and extent of compensation for the period of closure. After remand, the Labour Court again held that the appellant was liable to pay closure compensation to the employees affected by the closure of the mill from March 24, 1964 to June 10, 1964 at the rate of 50% of the basic wages and dearness allowance. The appellant again preferred an appeal to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, contending, inter alia, that it was not liable to pay any compensation on account of closure that took place under circumstance