Section 25FFA liability turns on proof of intended closure, and limitation barred the prosecution in this industrial dispute case.

Section 25FFA liability requires proof that the employer intended to close the undertaking, and the Madras High Court found that such intention was not established on the facts, including the takeover of the unit by SIPCOT and payment of salary up to August 1992. The Court also held that the complaint was barred by limitation because the offence was complete on the date of closure, the later notice and correspondence did not extend time, and no exclusion under Section 470(3) CrPC was available in the absence of prior sanction or consent. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the industrial establishment fell within the scope of Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act on the footing that more than 50 workmen were employed; (ii) Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation and whether the offence could be treated as a continuing one; (iii) Whether the closure was by the accused with the requisite intention so as to attract liability under Section 25FFA.

Issue (i): Whether the industrial establishment fell within the scope of Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act on the footing that more than 50 workmen were employed.

Analysis: The finding of the courts below was that the establishment employed more than 50 workmen and therefore attracted the statutory obligation under Section 25FFA. The challenge based on lesser employment was rejected on the basis of the materials relied upon by the prosecution.

Conclusion: The establishment was held to be within the ambit of Section 25FFA; this issue was decided against the revision petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation and whether the offence could be treated as a continuing one.

Analysis: The offence was complete on the date of closure and the subsequent process of notice or governmental correspondence did not extend limitation. The period for taking cognizance had to be computed in light of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the court held that the absence of any requirement of prior sanction or consent under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act meant that exclusion of time under Section 470(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unavailable. The prosecution filed in 1995-96 in respect of a closure in 1992 was therefore beyond time.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and the plea of continuing offence failed; this issue was decided in favour of the revision petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the closure was by the accused with the requisite intention so as to attract liability under Section 25FFA.

Analysis: Section 25FFA applies where the employer intends to close down the undertaking. On the facts, the unit was taken over by SIPCOT, salary had been paid till August 1992, and the material did not establish that the accused themselves intended to close the undertaking. In the absence of reliable proof of such intention, conviction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The accused were not liable under Section 25FFA because the requisite intention to close the undertaking was not established.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not stand, and the revision petitioners obtained reversal of the criminal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, liability depends on proof that the employer intended to close the undertaking, and prosecution must be instituted within the applicable limitation period where no statutory sanction or exclusion of time is available.

---