Facts
The Petitioner was employed as a machine operator with Respondent No. 1 management since 1989 at its Wazirpur, Delhi premises
Source reference: p. 1-2In 2011-12, the management shifted its establishment to Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner alleged his services were illegally terminated on 19.09.2011 without terminal benefits or notice as required under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act)
Source reference: p. 2-3The management contended that they issued transfer letters dated 21.09.2011 and 07.10.2011, but the Petitioner refused to join at the new location, despite the management being willing to keep him on the same service terms
Source reference: p. 7, 15The Labour Court dismissed the Petitioner’s claim, holding it was a case of "shifting" and not "closure"
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking compensation under Section 25FFF of the ID Act
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the shifting of the establishment from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh amounted to a “closure” of the undertaking under Section 25FFF of the ID Act
Source reference: p. 3 / para 52. Whether the Petitioner’s services were illegally terminated by the respondent management
Source reference: p. 6 / para 163. Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2
Source reference: p. 6 / para 15Law Applied
The Court applied Section 2(cc) and Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates notice and compensation only in cases of permanent closing down of an undertaking
Source reference: p. 10It relied on *Biddle Sawyer Ltd. v. Chemical Employees Union*, distinguishing the closure of a "place of business" from the closure of the "business itself"
Source reference: p. 10It further applied the principle from *Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Birla Corporation Ltd. Sramik Union*, which establishes that "shifting" does not amount to "closure" if there is no loss of employment or change in service conditions
Source reference: p. 13-14Lastly, it cited *Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal*, affirming an employer’s inherent right to choose its place of business
Source reference: p. 17-18Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioner admitted in cross-examination that the management had shifted its machinery to Sikandrabad and had repeatedly issued directions for him to join duties there
Source reference: p. 15The Petitioner further admitted that the management was willing to employ him on the same terms and that no formal termination letter was ever issued
Source reference: p. 16The Court reasoned that since the source of employment remained active and the Petitioner was offered continued service at the new location, the "business itself" had not ceased
Source reference: p. 17Consequently, the protections of Section 25FFF (regarding closure compensation) were not triggered as there was no "closure" in the legal sense, but merely a managerial decision to relocate
Source reference: p. 17Regarding Respondent No. 2, the Court noted the Petitioner failed to provide evidence of an employment contract with them, and his own statutory records (ESI/PF) were tied solely to Respondent No. 1
Source reference: p. 20Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the relocation of the unit was a case of "shifting" and not "closure," and therefore no illegal termination or entitlement to closure compensation under Section 25FFF occurred
The Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the Petitioner was an employee only of Respondent No. 1
Source reference: p. 21The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned Award dated 30.08.2013 was maintained
Source reference: p. 21Original Court PDF
Ram Briksh v. M/S Kiran Engineering and Suppliers and Anr. W.P.(C) 7712/2017
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in