Rajagopalan, J.

In W.P. No. 602 of 1954, by which he refused to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Industrial tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 19 of 1953. The appellant was the sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name of Photo Litho Press. On 20 February, 1953, the workers employed in this press through their union made certain demands which the appellant did not comply with. Thereupon conciliation proceedings were commenced on 26 March, 1953. When these proceedings for conciliation were pending, on 11 April, 1953, the appellant issued a notice informing his employees that since he was unable to run the press owing to domestic and other circumstances their services would not be required from that day and he offered to pay them one month's wages in lieu of notice. The conciliation officer reported about his failure to bring about conciliation. Thereupon the Government of Madras, in exercise of their powers under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, referred the dispute on 7 July, 1953 to the industrial tribunal, Madras, for adjudication. In the order of reference the dispute was described thus :

"Whether the closure of the Photo Litho Press, on and from 11 April 1953, was justified or not and if not, to what compensation is each of the workers affected by the closure entitled." *

The tribunal by its award rejected the plea of the appellant that the closure of the press was a discontinuance of the business of the owner and therefore could not constitute an industrial dispute at all. The point which the appellant sought to make before the tribunal was that he had sold away his business to a limited liability company which was incorporated under the name of Photo Litho Press, Ltd. The tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove this and found that the notice issued by him on 11 April, 1953 constituted a declaration of lockout and that such a lockout was illegal. On this basis the tribunal granted the relief of reinstatement of the workers besides other incidental reliefs. It is common ground that if the closure had been a case of discontinuance of business by the owner that would not amount to an industrial dispute as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. This is made clear by the decision of a Bench of this Court in the Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras 1952 (1) LLJ 364], to which one of no was a party. This decision has been reaffirmed in Jaya Bharat Tile Works v. State of Madras 1954 (1) LLJ 286]. The difference between a lockout and discontinuance of business has been explained in the Jaya Bharat Tile Works case. The statement of the law an this point is worth recapitulation both because it is binding on us and because it expresses succinctly and lucidly, if we may say so, the distinction thus :

"A lockout is different from the discontinuance of business. Occasionally some confusion is caused by the use of the word 'closing.' Lockout does not mean closing down of a business. It only means the closing down of the place of business. It means suspension of work, not discontinuance of the carrying on of the business. It means the refusal by an employer to continue to employ the persons employed by him and not the refusal by an employer to carry on any longer his business." *

We would like to add a word of caution here so that it should not be understood that if the sale of the business to the company shall be properly proved we would hold that the closure of the business would amount to discontinuance.' That question must depend upon other factors also. Our attention was invited to a decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in Artisan Press, Ltd. v. Labour Appellate, Tribunal of India 1954 (2) LLJ 24] wherein a limited company took over the business previously ran by a partnership concern as a running business and the question was whether the limited company was liable to pay bonus even for the period before it took over the busin