https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197444 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. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2018 15:52:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197444 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197444