Closure compensation under industrial law remains payable to regular employees, but Badli workmen cannot claim it in their place.

Closure compensation remained payable to regular employees under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, because the statutory remedy under section 42(4) read with section 78(1)(a)(iii) and Schedule III was not displaced by standing orders allowing stoppage without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. The employer's plea that closure arose from circumstances beyond its control did not extinguish liability for closure compensation, and the claim of regular employees was upheld. Badli workmen, however, had no assured right to employment or to stand in place of absent regular workers, so they could not claim closure compensation in substitution for regular employees; their claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether closure compensation was payable to the regular employees notwithstanding that the mill was closed under the standing orders because of circumstances beyond the employer's control; (ii) Whether Badli workmen were entitled to claim closure compensation in place of regular employees.

Issue (i): Whether closure compensation was payable to the regular employees notwithstanding that the mill was closed under the standing orders because of circumstances beyond the employer's control.

Analysis: The application for compensation for closure was held maintainable under the scheme of section 42(4) read with section 78(1)(a)(iii) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, since item 7 of Schedule III specifically covers payment of compensation for closures. The standing orders permitting stoppage without notice and without compensation in lieu of notice did not exclude the statutory remedy of closure compensation. The closure, even if occasioned by circumstances beyond control, did not eliminate liability to pay compensation to the employees for the closure period.

Conclusion: The claim of the regular employees to closure compensation was upheld and the employer's objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Badli workmen were entitled to claim closure compensation in place of regular employees.

Analysis: Badli workmen were found to have no guaranteed right to employment, no right to be employed in place of absent regular workmen, and no entitlement to claim wages or compensation on the basis of a closure affecting regular staff. Their status was treated as that of casual workmen, and the analogy of lay-off compensation under section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not assist them because the statutory protection excludes Badli workmen.

Conclusion: The direction to pay closure compensation to Badli workmen was set aside and their claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained for payment of closure compensation to regular employees, but the benefit was denied to Badli workmen, leaving the appeal successful only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory claim for closure compensation under the industrial relations framework remains maintainable even where closure occurs under the employer's standing orders, but Badli workmen, having no right to assured employment, are not entitled to closure compensation in the place of regular employees.

---