The court upheld that the closure of the employer's business complied with statutory provisions, affirming the award of closure compensation to workers under the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the award of the Tribunal in and by which the Tribunal had directed the 1^st respondent to pay closure compensation to the workers as contemplated u/s 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the claim of lay off compensation and reinstatement, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the employees, who are the members of the petitioner/Union were under the employ of the 1^st respondent and since paltry wages was being paid to the workmen, the workers joined a trade union, which, thereafter, raised a charter of demands on 1.5.2007 seeking wage revision and other benefits from the 1^st respondent. Since there was no proper response, the workers raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 10.5.2007 and the Conciliation Officer called upon the workers and the 1^st respondent for conciliation and pending the same, on 2.7.2007, the 1^st respondent declared a lay-off of its workers without obtaining prior permission from the Government for the purpose of effecting lay off, as the 1^st respondent had employed more than 100 workers.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the denial of work by the 1^st respondent was not a case of lay off, but in fact an illegal lockout and, thereafter, notice of closure was issued on 24.9.2007 without following the provisions of Chapter V-B of the Act as the 1^st respondent failed to comply with the provisions laid down u/s 25-M, 23 and 24 of the Act.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that there is no closing down of the place of employment as the business of the 1^st respondent has been moved to the 2^nd respondent and the act of lay off is only to victimize the workers. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent has got sufficient orders and few of the workers from the 1^st respondent were transferred to the 2^nd respondent. Since the stalemate continued in the conciliation talks which ultimately failed, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

5. On the dispute being referred for adjudication, the Tribunal took up the dispute in I.D. No.579/2010 and during trial, on the side of the petitioner, one witness was examined as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-21 were marked. On the side of the 1^st respondent, M.W.s 1 was examined and on the side of the 2^nd respondent M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-24 were marked. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the action of the 1^st respondent in closing the undertaking is a closure and not a lockdown and further on the basis of the willingness expressed by the 1^st respondent that it is willing to pay closure compensation to the workers connected in the dispute, the dispute was dismissed with a direction to the 1^st respondent to pay closure compensation to the workers related to the dispute as of the date of closure as contemplated u/s 25-F (b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that finding of the Tribunal that it is a case of closure of undertaking and not lay-off is a perverse finding and is contrary to the materials available on record.

7. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the shifting of the business from the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent, by removal of the machineries and also the employment of certain workmen, who w