The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to determine the bonafide nature of the closure of business and its impact on the entitlement to retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Ext. A is an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, dated 15.11.1956 in a dispute between the petitioner - the General Produce Limited, Alleppey - and its workmen. One of the directions in the award is that the workmen concerned should be paid wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation under S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention of the petitioner is that the award in so far as it directs payment of retrenchment compensation has to be quashed by an appropriate writ or direction in that behalf.

2. On 29.7.1954 the petitioner issued a notice to the effect that it was closing its business on account of financial losses and that the services of the workmen will not be required with effect from 30.7.1954. The petitioner repeated the contention that the closure was for financial reasons before the Tribunal and urged that such a closure did not attract the provisions of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal states this contention as follows in Para.4 of its award;

"They (the Management) further contend that S.25(F) is inapplicable to the facts of this case because the closure was for genuine financial reasons".

The workmen questioned the existence of any financial necessity for effecting the closure. They said:

"The plea of closure of the business on trade reasons is denied as it is against admitted facts and circumstances of the case". (Paragraph 5 of the award)

3. The learned counsel for the workmen submitted before me that the right to get retrenchment compensation has to be resolved in the light of the alteration in the law effected by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1957, (No. 4 of 1957) and drew my attention to S.25FFF(1) which was introduced into the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the said Ordinance:

"Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of S.25F, as if the workman had been retrenched:

Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer the total compensation to be paid to the workmen shall not exceed his average pay for three months".

4. Sub-s. (2) of S.1 of the Ordinance says:

"It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of December, 1956".

and it should be clear from that provision that the amendments introduced by the Ordinance cannot possibly have any application to termination of services effected - as in this case - prior to 1.12.1956.

5. The controversy, therefore, has to be resolved according to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood on the date the business was closed and the workmen discharged, or in other words, in the light of S.2(00) and 25-F of that enactment. S.2(00) defines retrenchment as follows:

"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health". and S.25-F is in the following terms:

"No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until -

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if t