- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, dated 6- 8-83 Annexure A to the writ petition. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act This Company carries on several businesses. One of such businesses was a Dehydration Unit in which the petitioner prepared dehydrated peas. For the purpose of this business, the petitioner emoloyed Block Su pervisors, Area Supe ors, Drivers, Agriculture and Assistant Agriculture Managers, as stated in paragraph 11 of the written statement of the company filed before the Labour Court which is Annexure -Z (a) to the writ petition. In this writ peti tion we are concerned with the said Agricul tural Department pertaining to the Dehydration Unit. In paragraph 12 (second), 18 and 20of the written statement of the company filed before the Labour Court it is stated that the company used to enter into contracts with the growers who had grown their peas in their agricultural fields. These employees of the petitioner used to contact farmers and encourage them to grow peas for supplying to the company and these peas after purchase were taken to the Dehydration Unit where they were processed for sale. The employees also used to issue seeds and fertilizer to such farmers and supervise sowing and harvesting of such peas. In October 1972 this entire business of the petitioner was closed down in view of heavy losses. The Dehydration Unit was closed down and the Agricultural Depart ment connected thereto was also closed down permanently and the services of the workmen concerned were terminated. These workmen concerned raised an in dustrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court which has passed the im pugned award in their favour, hence this writ petition.
(3.) THE Labour Court has observed in its award that in addition to the tinning of peas the petitioner was also manufacturing animal feed at Ghaziabad and hence there was only partial closure and not complete closure. It was also observed that juniors to the workmen were given alternative employment by the petitioner. On the basis of these contentions of the Labour Court decided against the employer. Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a difference between closure and retrench ment as observed by the Supreme Court in H. P. Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Employees' Union v. State of H. P. , 1996 (7) SCC 139. In the case of closure the workmen concerned can only claim closure compensation under Section 25fff, but they can not claim the benefit of Section 25f and Section 25 G or Section 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act (which correspond to Section 6n, Section 6 O and Section 6 P of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act ).;