The distinction between closure and lockout is a question of fact, and the power vested in the government under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act is quasi-judicial, requiring a reasonable opportunity for affected parties to state and establish their case.

JUDGMENT :

M.U. Isaak, J.—The petitioner is a partnership-firm, herein represented by its managing partner. It started an industry in 1959 under the style "Cochin Metals and Alloys" and another industry in 1962 under the style "Cochin Hollow Wares." The former was engaged in non-ferrous sheet rolling, while the latter was manufacturing hollow wares, hospital wares, etc. The workers in these two Industries are represented by respondent 2, the Chemical and Engineering Workers' Union, Palluruthy. Disputes arose in 1967 between the management and the workers; and they were settled by an agreement dated 16 December 1967, which was to remain in force for one year. But in July 1968, respondent 2 again raised disputes on matters already settled; and in order to force the management to accept the fresh demands made by them, which according to the management were highly unreasonable and impossible of compliance, the workers led by respondent 2 started "go-slow" tactics, and began to indulge in violent demonstrations and other unlawful activities. The management instituted a domestic enquiry about the "go-slow" tactics. On 9 November 1968, the workers kept the enquiry officer and one of the partners of the petitioner in confinement by use of criminal force within the factory of the Cochin Metals and Alloys by a process of what is nowadays known as "gherao." They were relieved from confinement by the intervention of the police, late in the evening.

2. On 8 November 1968, respondent 2 had approached the District Labour Officer, Always, for intervention and settlement of the disputes. Accordingly, he issued notice to the parties, convening a conference of the management and the union on 20 November 1968. On 11 November 1968, the petitioner put up notices in both factories notifying retrenchment of all workers with effect from the said date, consequent on its decision to close down these establishments. The reason for the closure was stated to be high cost of raw materials, non-availability of scarce raw materials, trade recession, non-feasibility of running the business on economic grounds, and consequent difference of opinion among the partners regarding the continuation of the business. Notice in the prescribed form was also given to the District Labour Officer, who received it admittedly on 12 November 1963. Apparently on receiving information about the closure of factories, he issued telegraphic notice to the management advancing the date of the conference on 12 November 1968. On that date, the District Labour Officer received a telegram from the managing partner of the petitioner, stating that he was unable to attend the conference, as he was under " gherao " in his residence by the workers, The conference was adjourned to 13 November 1968, which was attended by both parties. The petitioner stated in very clear terms that it had closed down the factories and was not intending to reopen or work them any longer, and that there was, therefore, no scope for any conciliation proceedings. The matter was accordingly reported by the District Labour Officer to the Government as per Ex R. 1 dated 14 November 1968. He also wrote to the Government as per Ex. R. 2 of even data recommending a reference of the dispute to the industrial tribunal, Calicut, for adjudication. Exhibits R. 1 and R. 2 were forwarded to the Government by the Labour Commissioner, with his letter Ex. R. 3 dated 25 November 1968, which endorsed the recommendation of the District Labour Officer for reference, Accordingly, a reference was made by the Government u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to the above tribunal, by order Ex. p. 1 dated 30 November 1968. According to the petitioner, this reference is incompetent, as there was no industrial dispute in view of the closure of the industry. The matter is pending adjudication.

3. In the meanwhile, the illegal and lawful activities of the workers represented by respondent 2 continu