The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of workers under Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the conditions for closure of an undertaking, and the impact of settlements on workers' claims.

1. The first petitioner is the management and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge a common order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.Nos.201 to 230, 246 to 248, 255, 263 an 326 of 2006 dated 30.4.2009. By the common order, the Labour Court computed the amount due to each of the contesting respondents 2 to 37 specifying those amounts in para 12 of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the direction to pay certain amounts, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 6.8.2010. Interim stay was granted on the same day for a limited period. Subsequently, when the contesting respondents filed vacate stay application in M.P.No.2 of 2010, the matter was not disposed of. But, once again interim stay was extended for two more weeks and thereafter there was no further extension. It is under the said circumstances, the Writ Petition came to be posted for final disposal.

3. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Jayarajaman, learned counsel appearing for Mr.H.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 37.

4. It is the admitted case that the respondents 2 to 37 except the respondent No.12 and respondent No.36 were workers in the petitioner company and the 12th respondent is the wife of K.Elangovan, who died in the meanwhile and respondent No.36 is the wife of D.Raja, who also died during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court.

5. In the claim statements filed by each of the contesting respondents, they had stated that the petitioner Industry was closed and while they were working as workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as "I.D.Act"), the petitioner company was closed on 26.8.1999 and in the company there were more than 100 workers working on each day during the period of 12 months before 26.8.1999 and the petitioner company comes within the Industry/establishment within the meaning of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Initially the company was closed stating that until further orders it will be closed. But, there is no Rule meaning in the term "until further orders". Even in the communication sent to the trade union, to which the contesting respondents belong, it was stated that the company was closed.

6. The workmen raised a dispute regarding the closure of the factory. In the said dispute, as no compromise was possible, a failure report was sent by the Assistant Director of Labour (Conciliation)- II, Chennai on 8.3.2001. The State Government upon receipt of the said failure report referred the dispute by G.O.(D) No.884, Labour and Employment Department dated 11.12.2001 for adjudication by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. The reference was whether the lock out declared by the management with effect from 26.8.1999 was justified. If not, to what relief, the workers are entitled to. The said dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.40 of 2002 and notice was directed to be served on the petitioner management as well as the Chemech Engineers Workers Progressive Union.

7. The said trade union filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. In the claim statement, the trade union contended that in the factory, there were more than 100 workers and it is an industrial establishment under Chapter V-B of the I.D.Act and due notice under Chapter V-B was not granted by the management and the management was not willing to reopen the factory on account of financial crisis. In view of the closure being illegal, as no prior permission was obtained under Section 25-O of the I.D.Act, the workers are eligible for all consequential benefits.

8. The petitioner management filed a counter statement dated 25.11.2002. In the counter statement, they have stated that the factory is engaging only 90 workers and therefore Chapter V-B will not apply to them. It is also stated that the workers had indiscipli