A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed in ID No.129/1993. The management has preferred this writ petition inter alia contending that there is illegality and irregularity on the part of the Labour Court in passing the award.

2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that respondents 2 to 4 raised a claim that the closure of business and denial of employment were illegal. It is contended that they were working with the management for a period of 17 years being selected through Employment Exchange in 1976. The management decided to close the workshop unit where the workers were engaged. However, the procedure contemplated under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act') was not complied with nor compensation paid. It is contended that the closure of the unit was illegal. The matter was taken up before conciliation. Though the management offered to provide alternate employment in some of the factories belonging to them, the workers did not accept the said offer. It is also contended that when one of them accepted the alternate job, he was denied employment. Subsequently, the management by letter dated 30/3/1993 informed that their services had been terminated. It is contended that the whole process by which they were denied employment was illegal. The Government referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court. The management contended that they started a workshop at Kottiyam for repair and maintenance of vehicles owned by them. The workmen were employed on daily wages and they were never permanent employees. Since the workshop could not be profitably run and huge loss was incurred, management decided to close the workshop and it was discontinued from 5/6/1992. All the workers who were engaged in the workshop accepted the alternate employment offered to them and such persons were redeployed taking into account their qualification and experience. The workmen who had raised the dispute claimed clerical job and they were not willing to accept the alternate job offered by the management. Consequently, they were terminated. Hence, it was contended that they have no right to claim reinstatement and the claim for monetary benefits was baseless.

3. The Labour Court examined two witnesses on behalf of the workers and the Personnel Manager was examined as a witness on behalf of the Management. Both sides relied upon various documents. The Labour Court having considered the matter came to the following findings:

1) That the three workers were in continuous service of the management in the automobile unit from 1976 to 1992.

2) The automobile unit was closed from 14/5/1992 onwards.

3) No retrenchment compensation was given to the workers on their termination in 1992 in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act

4) The offer for alternate employment was made after one year, on 30/3/1993, when the matter was taken up before the District Labour Officer.

5) The offer for alternate employment was belated and conditional as there was no guarantee or permanency of employment.

4. On these findings, the reference is answered and it was held that the denial of employment to the three workers were illegal and they were entitled to reinstatement and the management was directed to provide a permanent employment suitably, taking into consideration their qualifications and skill. They were also found entitled to backwages and other attendant benefits from 5/6/1992.

5. It is contended by the management that the findings are absolutely erroneous. When the fact of closure of the workshop was admitted and the workmen were employed as daily wages, there was no reason for direction to provide alternate employment and that too permanently. Further, respondents 3 and 4 had refused the alternate employment offered by the petitioner and though the 2nd respondent accepted the offer, he did not come for attending the job and therefore, there cannot be any cl