1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of the award dated 06.08.2004, passed by the Labour Court under Industrial Disputes Act, Durg, in case No. 15/I.D Act/Reference/ 1999.

2. The facts in nutshell are that petitioner No.1 is a Director of Keystone Industries Ltd. and Petitioner No.2 is a Private Limited Company, styled as Vishnu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., a transferee of the industrial establishment owned by petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court/respondent No.1 for adjudication on the following reference:

"Whether the removal of Udayshyam and three others is just and legal, if not, what relief they are entitled to and what direction can be passed to the employer."

3. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of claim (Annexure-P/2) before the Labour Court stating therein that the workers namely Udayshyam and three others were employed by petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 was the agent of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 had closed his industrial establishment illegally in October, 1998. The said establishment was reopened on 06.01.1999 whereby the workers were forced to seek transfer or accept final payment. Before the closure, the employer had neither issued notice nor paid required compensation in accordance with the law. It was, therefore, prayed that the said workers be reinstated in service with full back -wages.

4. Petitioner No.1 filed written statement (Annexure-P/3) and denied the averments of respondent No.2 to the extent that petitioner No.2 - Vishnu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. was the agent of petitioner No.1. It was stated that petitioner No.2 was an independent Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act. It was further denied that the establishment of petitioner No.1 was illegally closed from October, 1998. The establishment was running in losses and it was not possible to continue production with recurring losses. Therefore, it was decided to close the establishment and after due notice to the workers and the Labour Commissioner, the establishment was closed w.e.f. 06.01.1999. It was further stated that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act in regard to closure were followed. It was stated that all the workers were paid one month's pay, retrenchment compensation and encashment of un-availed portion of leave. All the workers accepted their final payment, except four workers who are represented through respondent No.2 in this writ petition. They categorically declined to accept final payment. The plant and machinery of petitioner No.1 was transferred vide lease agreement dated 21.01.1999 (Annexure-R/2) w.e.f. 28.12.1998. All the workers were duly retrenched in accordance with law and had accepted the final payment except the four workers represented through respondent No.2. It was further stated that notice of closure of the establishment under the Industrial Disputes Act was given to the Secretary, Government of M.P., Department of Labour and Employment endorsing copies to Labour Commissioner, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Employment Exchange, Durg. Individual notices to all the workers including these four workers were given on 05.01.1999. Notice was also affixed on the notice board regarding closure of the establishment. Respondent No.2 amended its statement of claim subsequently on 26.07.200 I incorporating paras 8 (a) (b) and (c) stating that the transfer was made on 28.12.1998 and before that date provisions of Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D. Act") were not complied with. Thus, there was violation of provisions of Section 25 FF of the I.D. Act

5. The Labour Court framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether closure of the establishment on 06.01.1999 was legal and proper ?

(ii) Whether removal of the workers was valid?

(iii) reliefs and expenses."

The first two issues were answered