An employer who intends to close down an undertaking must follow the procedure prescribed under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. Failure to follow the prescribed procedure will render the closure of the undertaking illegal, and the workmen will be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if the undertaking had not been closed down.

P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Management.

( 2 ) A similar matter had come before the Court in Writ Appeal No. 585/1996, but the court decided the questions raised before it on conclusions, inter alia, that the appellant therein was retrenched on the ground that the project concerned was at the verge of the closure which did not satisfy the requirements of law and without, thus, complying with Section 25-F of the Industry i Disputes Act, the appellant could not have been retrenched. In the instant case, however, some fresh arguments have been advanced based on facts, inter alia, that in the contract of service which is available in the shape of a letter of appointment dated 29-9-1986, the appellant herein was given appointment for Vizag project at Vizag site for the duration of one/two years or till the completion of the project, whichever was earlier and, "however, during this period, your services can be terminated with one month s notice or one month s pay in lieu thereof without assigning any reason" and the termination has accordingly been effected on the grounds, inter alia, "as major activities of the project site have been completed, your services are no longer required from 30th September, 1995" (vide letter dated 31-8- 1995) which attracted section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act and terminal benefits as contemplated therein have been given to the appellant and alternatively, even if it is taken to be a termination simpliciter, all conditions as contemplated under Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act have been complied with. To answer the second question first, if the case of the petitioner-appellant is one of termination simpliciter since the respondent-management is an industrial establishment, Section 25-N is attracted and admittedly no steps have been taken to comply with the requirements therein. Coming to the first argument, learned counsel for the appellant has given great emphasis upon the fact that termination has been effected in the process of the closure of the project and thus it will be one deemed to be under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial disputes Act. He has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court -- workmen, Straw Board Mfg. Co. vs. Management (1) 1974 (1) LLJ 499 wherein it is observed as follows :"it may not always be possible to immediately shut down a mill or concern even though a decision to close the same may at any rate at the time have irrevocably been taken. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in the employer arranging closure of the S. Mill in such a way as to guard against unnecessary inconvenience to both the managements as well as to the about and against possible avoidable wastage or loss to the concern, say for not being able to complete some processes which have ultimately to be finished. Having decided to close down a unit on account of nonavailability of raw materials the supply of which had stopped, it was necessary to go on witn the unused stock of raw materials for some time for which a lesser number of workers would be necessary who would then naturally constitute the next batch or batches to go. We do not see anything wrong in law in electing such a step or mode in finally closing a unit or a concern. It may be in the nature of a business to take recourse to such a mode which cannot ordinarily and per se be considered as unfair or illegitimate. "the other Judgment is in the case of hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. vs. H. S. W. C. Ltd. Employees Union, hyderabad (2) AIR 1995 SC 1163, in which it is observed on the question whether the court could give a direction to absorb employees found surplus and retrenched on that ground at one place of work to another place of work of the establishment is concerned, as follows : -"the first question that must be answered is, whether the works at Hyderabad had come to an end? We have been taken through the relevant material. It cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document