JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The British India Corporation has filed this petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur, dated 15th Aug., 1973, directing the petitioner company to reinstate the respondent workmen and to pay arrears of back wages to them. 2. Rajkaran Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Rama Shanker and Ram Dayal were under the employment of the British India Corporation as Chaudikars in the Sutherland House, Civil Lines, Kanpur, where the Head Office of the Champaran Sugar Mills and Kanpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Units of British India Corporation, were located. In 1970 the British India Corporation decided to sell Sutherland House building and to shift their office to the premises of Kanpur Woollen Mills. In pursuance of this decision, the employers decided to retrench its workmen. On 13th Feb., 1970, the respondent-workmen were given notice of retrenchment and they were paid compensation. The workmen raised demand for reinstatement with effect from 17-2-1970. Conciliation proceedings failed, thereupon, the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute to the Labour Court Kanpur for adjudication. The dispute referred was whether the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen with effect from 17-2-1970 was justified and valid. If not, to what relief they were entitled. 3. The employers as well as the workmen contested the proceedings before the Labour Court and produced evidence in support of their contention. The workmen contended that their retrenchment was unjustified as after their retrenchment the employers had engaged three Chaukidars who were keeping watch at the Sutherland House. They further contended that the Sutherland House was never sold by the employers, instead the office at Woollen Mills Kanpur was again shifted back to the Sutherland House. The employers contended that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the Sutherland House could not be sold so they were forced to shift back their office to Sutherland House. They asserted that the services of the respondent workmen were retrenched bona fide as their services were not required on account of their policy decision to reorganise their business. The Labour Court repelled the contention of the employers and held that the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen was unjustified and they were entitled to reinstatement in service with full wages. 4. They asserted that the services of the respondent workmen were retrenched bona fide as their services were not required on account of their policy decision to reorganise their business. The Labour Court repelled the contention of the employers and held that the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen was unjustified and they were entitled to reinstatement in service with full wages. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that it is open to the employer to retrench its employees if due to exigencies of business the services of the workmen are not required, and the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reinstating the respondent-workmen. We have given our anxious consideration to these submissions but on a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, we find no merit in either of these two submissions. 5. It is well settled that if an employer closes his business or if there is any re-organisation scheme, or if there is paucity of work, it is open to the employers to retrench their work- men in accordance with the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, but retrenchment must be a bona fide one. It cannot be used as a camouflage to dispense with the services of the workmen who may otherwise be entitled to continue in service. In the instant case, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that even though the employers shifted their office from Sutherland House to the premises of Kanpur Woollen Mills, the work which was being performed by the respondents-workmen did not cease to be in existence. The Labour Court referred to the evidence of the employers, and recorded findings that after the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen new hands were recruited to do the work of Chaukidars and those newly recruited chaudikars were posted to keep watch over Sutherland House. These findings show that the work for which the respondent-workmen were employed had not ceased due to reorganisation of business. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly held that the employers' plea that the services of the respondent-workmen were retrenched bona fide could not be upheld. If the employers required fresh hands for carrying on the work of Chaukidars they should have offered employment to the respondent-workmen as contemplated by Sec. 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly held that the employers' plea that the services of the respondent-workmen were retrenched bona fide could not be upheld. If the employers required fresh hands for carrying on the work of Chaukidars they should have offered employment to the respondent-workmen as contemplated by Sec. 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the employers did not raise any plea before the Labour Court that they had offered opportunity to the respondent workmen for re-employment as Chaukidars. The employers therefore clearly failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of S. 6-Q of the Act. 6. The Labour Court has recorded findings of fact on appreciation of evidence on record which does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The finding that the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen was unjustified is well supported by the evidence on record. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned award does not suffer from any manifest error of law. 7. In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.