JUDGMENT - H.D. PATEL, J.:---The petitioner by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has prayed for issuance of writ to quash the order dated 28-1-1985 of the Labour Court, Amravati, by which respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were held entitle to recover the amount or retrenchment compensation for the services rendered by them from the petitioner within two from the date of order. 2. The brief facts are that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed separate applications under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act" for recovery of compensation from the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner has closed his establishment and has not paid compensation as laid down under section 25-FFF of the Act. The petitioner gas offered them compensation equivalent to three months wages, which they did not accept. Accordingly a direction was claimed to pay each of the respondent workmen the compensation as envisaged by section 25-FFF of the Act. The petitioner defended the claim by admitting that he had closed down his establishment, but denied his liability to pay the compensation under section 25-FFF on the ground that the establishment was closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the proprietor of the press and hence three months' wages offered to each of the workmen was just and proper. The reason as disclosed was that the proprietor of the press was suffering from blood pressure, more commonly known as hyper-tension and being under constant physical care and attention, had to close down the business. 3. The Labour Court accepted the fact that the proprietor of the press was suffering from the aliment complained of, but found that the closure of the business was not on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond his control and hence there was no justification in offering the compensation to the respondent workmen at the rate of three months' wages. Consequently the petitioner was directed to pay the full compensation in accordance with section 25-FFF of the Act by the common order dt. 23-1-1955. It is this order, which is impugned in the petition. 4. Consequently the petitioner was directed to pay the full compensation in accordance with section 25-FFF of the Act by the common order dt. 23-1-1955. It is this order, which is impugned in the petition. 4. The question for decision is whether the business of the petitioner was closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner so as the attract the provision to section 25-FFF, which meant that the workmen would get much less compensation than what they would otherwise get in case the main part of sub-section (1) of section 25-FFF applied. In other words, whether the respondent workmen were entitled to claim compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act or three months' wages as offered by the petitioner. 5. Section 25-FFF of the Act provides for compensation to workmen in case of closing down an undertaking and sub-section (1) thereof, which has the bearing, reads as under : "25-FFF (1) where an undertaking is closed down for any reason what so ever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F as in the workman had been retrenched : Provided that there the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under Clause (b) of section 25-F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. Explanation.---An undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of--- (i) financial difficulties (including financial losses); or (ii) accumulation of indisposed of stuck; or (iii) the expiry of the period of lease or lease granted to it; or (iv) in a case where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on; shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable be circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this sub-section.' The legislative intention is clear as to the compensation payable to the workman in the case of closing down of an undertaking. If an undertaking is closed down for whatever reason, every workman falling within sub-section (1) of section 25-FFF is deemed to have been retrenched and he is entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F. Where, however, retrenchment has become necessary on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, it is specifically stated in the proviso to that sub-section that the compensation payable to workman under Clause (b) of section 25-F shall not exceed average of three months' wages. However, the explanation to the proviso contains certain specified cases which exclude form the ambit of the proviso, thereby cringing such instances within the main part of sub-section (1) of section 25-FFF. 6. The expression "unavoidable circumstances" appearing in the proviso will have to be strictly construed, if the intent of the legislature is to be carried out and which is apparent from the explanation appended thereto. The expression "unavoidable circumstances" must refer to the closure, the reasons for which has to have connection with the business or its function. The circumstances, however, unavoidable may not attract the proviso, if those circumstances are unrelated to the business of the undertaking or its for its functions. In order to attract the proviso, the closure of an undertaking mist be for unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer and such circumstances must necessarily be in connection of or have nexus with the functioning of the undertaking. An employer suffering from a disease may not be in a position to attend or even run his business but such circumstances, though unavoidable and beyond his control, is personal to himself and not connected with the business or its functioning. The proprietor of the press may be suffering form hyper tension and that may be a valid ground for closing down the press, but the illness of the proprietor cannot be an unavoidable circumstances beyond his control as contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 25-FFF and the liability to pay compensation would not be limited to three months' wages for each of the workmen whose services have been brought to end. Such a view has also been taken by the Kerala High Court in (Antony v. Kumaran)1, 1979(1) Labour Law Journal 406. Such a view has also been taken by the Kerala High Court in (Antony v. Kumaran)1, 1979(1) Labour Law Journal 406. In my opinion, therefore, the Labour Court was perfectly justified in ordering payment of compensation to each of the workmen in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. 7. In the result, the petition is devoid of any substance and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----