Closure of business does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reaffirming that termination due to closure is outside statutory definitions of retrenchment.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri Vinod Upadhyay, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. There are two connected writ petitions.

3. The first writ petition i.e. Writ-C No. 23140 of 2000, has been filed with following prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Award dated 29.5.1999 given in Adjudicate Case No. 242 of 1993, by respondent no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 2.11.1999 issued against the petitioners.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent no. 4 from enforcing the award passed in Adjudicate Case No. 242 of 1993."

4. Second writ petition i.e. Writ-C No. 13760 of 2002 has been filed with following prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.8.2001 passed by respondent no. 3 and Citation dated 26.9.2001 issued by respondent no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed further towards recovery in pursuance to the aforesaid order and citation and not to adopt any coercive measure against the petitioner."

5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the first writ petition, the award has been assailed and in the second writ petition, order was passed for recovery and citation was issued which are under challenged. He further submits that once the first writ petition succeeds, the subsequent is consequential and that can be disposed of accordingly. It is further submitted that petitioner-Company closed all his operations on 16.5.1983, where the respondents were working, who were permitted to continue post-closure until all their plant, machinery and other assets were disposed of. He further submits that respondents services came to an end in consequence of closure of the petitioners' unit. He further submits that it is not the case of the respondents that their services were terminated by an act of employers, which may constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes State Act , 1947. He next submits that the petitioners' unit was closed which falls under Section 2(ee) of the said Act, therefore, the award passed in favour of the respondents is bad in law as well as consequential proceedings.

6. He further submits that this Court has already allowed a petition i.e. Writ-C No. 2964 of 2002 (M/s J.K. Rayon v. Labour Court Kanpur and others), where identical set of facts were involved and quashed the impugned award and the recovery proceedings by the order dated 17.5.2019. He further submits that to the best of his knowledge, the said order has not been challenged in the higher Court. He prays that identical relief be granted.

7. In spite of service, no body appeared on behalf of respondents.

8. The Court has perused the record and on perusal of record as well as the order dated 17.5.2019, it appears that the said order covers the issue. Record further reveals that the specific objections were raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court, but the same has not been considered.

9. This Court in the Writ-C No. 2964 of 2002 M/s J.K. Rayon v. Labour Court Kanpur and others), vide order dated 17.5.2019, has quashed the award. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are held as under:-

"19. This Court is of opinion that once the Labour Court was satisfied for a fact that the petitioner Unit had suffered a closure with intimation of the fact to the Government,