( 1 ) THIS is an application by the J. K. Hosiery Factory a firm manufacturing hosiery in Kanpur, for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 26-8-1955 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, lucknow Bench, and for any other writ order or direction that may be considered proper. During the pendency of some appeals between the applicant and its workmen in the Labour Appellate tribunal the applicant, which was carrying on the business on a continuous loss since 1949 and had incurred a total loss of more than Rupees Ten lacs upto the middle of 1953 decided to close down the factory and applied to the Appellate Tribunal for permission to do so and discharge the workmen. Previously it had been laying-off its workmen, from time to time. Before the Tribunal could consider the question of granting permission the applicant withdrew the application on being advised that it was its fundamental right to close down its business and no permission of the tribunal was required. After withdrawing the application the applicant on 14-5-1953 gave a notice to its workmen that the factory would be closed with effect from 1-9-1953 and another notice terminating their services with effect from that date. The factory was closed on 1-94953 and the workmen were discharged. Thereupon two applications were made to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 23, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, one by nineteen workmen and the other, by seventy-four. The applications were disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 26-8-1955 which is the order sought to be quashed through this application.

( 2 ) THE case of the workmen before the Tribunal was that the applicant had laid-off the workmen for an indefinite period through its notice, that the lay-off was tantamount to punishment and as such against the Standing Orders in force in the applicants business and that consequently they were entitled to be re-instated with full wage for the period during which they remained out of employment. The applicant denied that it had issued any notice for lay-off on 1-9-1953 and contended that it had closed down its business on account of continuous loss since 1949. It referred to its notice of 14-8-1953 warning the workmen that the factory would be closed with effect from 1-9-1953 and the other notice terminating the workmens services with effect from the same date. The workmen denied that these notices were given by the applicant. The Tribunal found that no notice of lay-off was given by the applicant on 1-9-1933, that on the other hand it had given notices on 14-8-1953 for closing down the factory and for terminating the services of the workmen on account of its suffering continuous loss since 1949, that prior to the closure it had been obliged to effect lay-offs from time to time, and that the closure was forced upon the management by the continued loss and also by the unsympathetic attitude of the workmen. The applicant had re-started the factory in October 1954 and had offered to retake those workmen who were prepared to serve it on reduced wages. The offer had been accepted by about twenty-six of the workmen. The Tribunal held that the closure of the factory was of a temporary duration, that the applicant had an inherent right to close down the business, that if an employer closes his business not bona fide but as a mere device, the workmen would be entitled to compensation and re-instatement if he re-opened the business, that closure of the business by the applicant was bona fide, its object being to reduce wages in order to prevent the continuous loss, that the termination of the services of the workmen on closure amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of the Industrial disputes Act, that though Section 25f which was added in the Act after the closure had no retrospective effect, compensation was usually allowed by Tribunals on retrenchment of workmen and that it was proper to compensate the workmen on the principle embodied in section 25p