Shifting of industrial unit following due notice does not constitute closure or illegal termination of services.

The Petitioner, an operator/fitter since 1990, alleged his services were illegally terminated on 05.09.2011 when Respondent No. 1 shifted its establishment from Wazirpur, Delhi, to Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The Petitioner claimed this amounted to a "closure" of the undertaking, entitling him to retrenchment compensation and notice pay under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947.

Conversely, the management argued it was a case of shifting, not closure, and that the Petitioner failed to report for duty at the new location despite multiple transfer letters dated 21.09.2011 and 07.10.2011.

The Labour Court dismissed the Petitioner’s claim, leading to this writ petition.

Whether the shifting of an industrial unit from one state to another constitutes "closure" under Section 25FFF of the ID Act or is merely a relocation/shifting.

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

The Court applied Section 25FFF of the ID Act, 1947, which mandates compensation only upon the permanent closing down of an undertaking.

It relied on *Biddle Sawyer Ltd. v. Chemical Employees Union*, establishing that "closure" implies the irrevocable end of business/employment generation, not merely the shifting of a "place of business".

It further applied *Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Birla Corporation Ltd. Sramik Union*, which distinguishes shifting from closure by the absence of loss of employment.

and *Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal*, confirming an employer’s inherent right to choose its place of business.

The Court noted that for "closure" to occur under Section 2(cc) of the ID Act, the business itself must be terminated irrevocably.

In this case, the Petitioner admitted in cross-examination that the management remained operational at the new site and had repeatedly invited him to join on the same service conditions.

The Court reasoned that since the source of employment remained intact and only the geographical location changed, Section 25FFF was not triggered.

Regarding Respondent No. 2, the Court found that the Petitioner failed to meet the onus of proof, as his own evidence (ESI/PF records and wage signatures) linked him exclusively to Respondent No. 1, which is a legally distinct entity.

It affirmed that the management was willing to retain the workman, but the workman chose not to join the relocated unit.

The Court further held that no relationship existed with Respondent No. 2.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Labour Court’s award dated 03.09.2013 was upheld.