Retrenchment, not closure, where business continued existing contracts and section 25F conditions were not met.

Termination of workmen was treated as retrenchment because the undertaking had not undergone a real and complete closure; the employer continued executing existing contracts, so the business remained operative for pending commitments. In that setting, section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act applied, and its mandatory conditions precedent had not been satisfied. The purported reliance on closure under section 25FFF therefore failed, and the Labour Court's award was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of the workmen amounted to retrenchment attracting the conditions precedent under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or whether it was a case of closure falling within section 25FFF.

Analysis: The business was not completely closed down. The employer continued to execute existing contracts, though no fresh contracts were being taken. Closure, for the purpose of excluding retrenchment, requires a real and complete cessation of the undertaking so that no work remains after termination of employment. Where only some workmen are terminated while the business continues to operate for existing commitments, the case remains one of retrenchment. Since the admitted position was that the statutory conditions under section 25F were not complied with, the award could not be impeached on the ground of illegality.

Conclusion: The termination was retrenchment and not closure. Section 25F applied, its requirements were not satisfied, and the challenge to the award failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, with the award of the Labour Court left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A closure that excludes retrenchment must be a complete and bona fide cessation of the business, and continued execution of existing work means the termination of workmen remains retrenchment governed by section 25F.

---