JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, is at the instance of employer to the two orders passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court in appeal in favour of respondent No. 1. The facts found proved need mention to appreciate the issue urged. 2. The petitioner is a scheduled industry as per the provision of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act (for short "the Act"). Respondent No. 1 was an employee working in the petitioner's industry. 3. On February 22, 1988, respondent No. I was served with chargesheet for a major misconduct enumerated in the standing orders applicable. As a consequence, the case was adjudicated by the departmental enquiry which resulted in dismissal of respondent No. 1. This led to filing of an application by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court under Section 31(3) of the Act challenging the said dismissal. The Labour Court held the enquiry proceedings to be bad and illegal and called upon the employer to prove the misconduct. Eventually, the Labour Court by its final order dated February 12, 1999, directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 but declined to award backwages. It was, however, found as a fact that the factory of the petitioner where respondent No. 1 was working was closed with effect from September 30, 1997, and all the workers working as on September 30, 1997, were paid required closure and retrenchment compensation. It was, therefore, neither possible nor proper to direct reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. The Labour Court, therefore, instead of directing reinstatement directed that respondent No. 1 will be entitled to claim all these benefits which were made available to all other employees. Accordingly, the direction was given to extend all benefits which respondent No. 1 would have been entitled to, had he been in the service. However, it was not so specified as to which are those benefits which would be legally extended to respondent No. 1. This order of the Labour Court was upheld by the Industrial Court in appeal filed by the petitioner which is now impugned in this petition. Heard, Shri Rajmal Jain learned counsel for petitioner and Shri P.D. Kale, learned counsel for respondent finally. 4. This order of the Labour Court was upheld by the Industrial Court in appeal filed by the petitioner which is now impugned in this petition. Heard, Shri Rajmal Jain learned counsel for petitioner and Shri P.D. Kale, learned counsel for respondent finally. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Jain submitted that respondent No. 1-Ravishankar retired from the service on July 1, 1997, on attaining the age of superannuation. It was, therefore, his submission that respondent No. 1 was only entitled to claim his retiral benefits but not closure compensation. According to him, the closure was effected from September 31, 1997, whereas, respondent No. 1 stood retired much before September 31, 1997, i.e., on July 1, 1997, and, therefore, even if he had remained in service, he was not entitled to claim any closure compensation. It was also brought to my notice that respondent No. 1 has been paid his gratuity dues of Rs. 20,621, vide cheque No. 2963092, dated December 1, 1999, by the petitioner and, therefore, there remains nothing for any further adjudication in this petition except to clarify respondent No. 1 entitlement. 5. In reply the submission of learned counsel for the respondent was in support of the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that contentions of the petitioner to the extent explained deserves acceptance. In my opinion, the effect of order of the Labour Court was that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to only those benefits which he would have got had he been in service. It only means that on the date when respondent No. 1 retired (July 1, 1997), he was entitled to claim all his retiral benefits. The closure had taken place subsequent to his date of retirement and hence he was not entitled to claim any closure compensation for the simple reason that he had ceased to be in the employment on and after July 1, 1997. 7. I am informed that respondent No. 1 has been paid his gratuity amount by the petitioner on December 1, 1999. If that be so, the same shall be retained by respondent No. 1 as his lawful retiral benefits. 7. I am informed that respondent No. 1 has been paid his gratuity amount by the petitioner on December 1, 1999. If that be so, the same shall be retained by respondent No. 1 as his lawful retiral benefits. If any other retiral benefits are lawfully available to respondent No. 2 which can be claimed as per terms of his service conditions then, he is free to make that claim. On such claim being made, if permissible, the same shall be examined by the petitioner and payment will be made at an early date. 8. The petition, is accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observations finally. No costs.