https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199690 Closure of an undertaking following a winding-up order does not automatically confine workmen to three months' compensation under the proviso to section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the employer must prove that the closure resulted from unavoidable circumstances beyond its control, and that question depends on the facts. A winding-up order alone is not sufficient. Employees drawing wages above Rs. 500 per month are not excluded from the definition of workman unless they are employed in a supervisory capacity; the wage ceiling by itself does not defeat entitlement to retrenchment compensation. The liquidator's contrary assumptions were rejected and the claims were remitted for fresh factual examination under the correct legal principles. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:02:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199690 Closure of an undertaking following a winding-up order does not automatically confine workmen to three months' compensation under the proviso to section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the employer must prove that the closure resulted from unavoidable circumstances beyond its control, and that question depends on the facts. A winding-up order alone is not sufficient. Employees drawing wages above Rs. 500 per month are not excluded from the definition of workman unless they are employed in a supervisory capacity; the wage ceiling by itself does not defeat entitlement to retrenchment compensation. The liquidator's contrary assumptions were rejected and the claims were remitted for fresh factual examination under the correct legal principles. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 01 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199690