Genuine closure under labour law turns on final cessation in fact, while the proviso applies only to unavoidable circumstances.

Closure under the Industrial Disputes Act requires a real and final stoppage of the undertaking in fact, assessed on the totality of circumstances rather than on motive alone. Temporary shutdown, profitability concerns, or absence of winding up are not decisive if the business has in substance ceased. The proviso to section 25FFF(1) applies only where the employer proves objective unavoidable circumstances beyond its control; mere gherao, staff apprehension, financial difficulty, or business inconvenience is insufficient. The legal test therefore distinguishes genuine closure from a disguised lock-out and limits reduced liability to cases meeting the statutory proviso.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employer had closed down its undertaking on 3 October 1967 or had merely declared a lock-out in the guise of closure; (ii) whether, if there was a closure, it was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer so as to attract the proviso to section 25FFF(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the employer had closed down its undertaking on 3 October 1967 or had merely declared a lock-out in the guise of closure.

Analysis: The decisive question was the reality of the closure, not the motive behind it. A closure under labour law requires that the business itself be finally and irrevocably stopped in fact, and not merely that the place of business be temporarily shut. The surrounding circumstances, including the gherao, the apprehension of the staff, the stoppage of production, the notice of closure, the discharge of employees and the cessation of business activity, showed that the management had taken a real decision to stop the principal undertaking. The Tribunal had wrongly treated business profitability and the absence of winding up as decisive factors.

Conclusion: The undertaking was genuinely closed down on 3 October 1967 and the case was not one of lock-out.

Issue (ii): Whether, if there was a closure, it was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer so as to attract the proviso to section 25FFF(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The burden lay on the employer to prove that the closure fell within the proviso. The expression contemplates circumstances which are objectively unavoidable and beyond the employer's control. The gherao and the apprehension of the staff did not by themselves establish such circumstances. The evidence did not show that the employer could not, by acting in a normal businesslike manner, continue the undertaking with adequate protection, nor was there proof of insurmountable conditions of the kind contemplated by the proviso. The statutory explanation also indicated that mere financial difficulty or similar business inconvenience would not suffice.

Conclusion: The closure was not due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer; compensation was payable under the main part of section 25FFF(1) and not under the proviso.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the finding of lock-out was displaced by a finding of true closure, and the employer's liability was confined to compensation under the principal provision governing closure of an undertaking.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining closure under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the court must examine whether the undertaking was in fact and finally closed on the totality of circumstances, and the proviso applies only when the employer proves objective unavoidable circumstances beyond its control.

---