### Shifting of a unit with an offer of continued employment does not constitute closure or illegal termination.

The Petitioner, Ram Prakash, was employed as a helper/machine operator with Respondent No. 1 (M/S Kiran Engineering) since 1992 at its Wazirpur, Delhi premises

In 2011, the management shifted its establishment to Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh

The Petitioner alleged that his services were terminated on 05.09.2011 without statutory benefits such as retrenchment compensation or notice pay

Conversely, the Respondent contended that they merely shifted the unit and issued transfer letters (dated 21.09.2011 and 07.10.2011) to all workmen, which the Petitioner failed to honor

The Petitioner approached the Labour Court, which ruled in favor of the management on 29.08.2013, holding that the relocation was a "shifting" and not a "closure"

The Petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the relocation of the establishment from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh constitutes a "closure" under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or a mere "shifting" of unit

2. Whether the services of the Petitioner were illegally terminated by the Respondent management

3. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2

The court primarily applied Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), which mandates notice and compensation only when an undertaking is "closed down"

It applied the definition of "closure" under Section 2(cc) of the ID Act, as interpreted in *Biddle Sawyer Ltd. v. Chemical Employees Union*, distinguishing the permanent closing of a business from the relocation of a "place of business"

It further relied on *Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Birla Corporation Ltd. Sramik Union*, which established that shifting does not amount to closure if there is no loss of employment or change in service conditions

The court also reaffirmed the employer’s inherent right to choose the place of business as seen in *Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal*

The Court analyzed the Petitioner’s cross-examination, where he admitted that the management had not terminated him but had repeatedly directed him via written letters to join the new Sikandrabad location on the same terms and conditions

The Court reasoned that "closure" requires the final and irrevocable termination of the business itself, whereas here, the business remained alive and the source of employment was preserved

Since the Respondent offered to continue the Petitioner’s employment at the new site without altering service conditions, there was no loss of employment that would trigger Section 25FFF

Regarding Respondent No. 2, the Court found that the Petitioner failed to meet the onus of proof, as his own evidence showed he was on the rolls of Respondent No. 1 alone, and the two entities were distinct legal persons regardless of family ties

Consequently, Section 25FFF of the ID Act was not attracted

The Court ruled that the Petitioner was not illegally terminated; rather, he failed to report to the transferred place of duty despite valid offers from the management

The Court also upheld the finding that no employer-employee relationship existed with Respondent No. 2

No perversity or illegality was found in the Labour Court’s Award dated 29.08.2013