ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. In this petition, an Order (P.8) passed by Labour Commissioner, M.P., Indore on 31-1-2005 has been assailed. 2. An application was filed by respondent No. 2/Workers' Union in which on account of salary a total sum of Rs. 36,72,000/- was claimed. It was specifically mentioned that workers were restrained from entering the factory premises with effect from 1-11-2002. Employees are permanent employees, their salaries have not been paid. The amount was calculated on the basis of salary which was due and payable. 3. A preliminary objection (P.5) was filed by employer, it was submitted that claim was barred by limitation, detailed reply (P.6) was also submitted, it was contended that factory was closed, services of workers have been terminated. 4. Labour Commissioner as per Order (P.8) has directed payment of a sum of Rs. 35,87,055.98, recovery of the same has been ordered as arrears of land revenue and payment has been ordered to be made to employees mentioned in the list. 5. Petitioner has submitted that since there was termination of services, owing to closure. There was no question of payment of wages after termination of services owing to closure of petitioner-factory. Hence, order could not have been passed within the purview of section 33-C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Order is without jurisdiction. 6. Respondents' counsel has submitted that retrenchment compensation is at least payable in case of termination of services in the event of closure of petitioner-factory even as per case set up by employer. Payment is sought to be W. P. S. No. 1660 of 2005 decided on 27-4-2005. (Jabalpur) justified on the basis that it be treated as payment towards closure compensation for which compensation is payable in terms of section 25-F of ID Act. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Apex Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others, 2005 (I) LLJ 853 wherein the Apex Court has laid down that in the event of closure or transfer of undertaking compensation has to be paid as if it was retrenchment under section 25-F of ID Act. Reliance has also been placed on yet another decision of the Apex Court in Sawtram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd., Akola v. Baliram Ukandaji and Another, AIR 1966 SC 616 in which it has been laid down that claim for compensation for lay off need not be for a pre-determined sum. Reliance has also been placed on yet another decision of the Apex Court in Sawtram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd., Akola v. Baliram Ukandaji and Another, AIR 1966 SC 616 in which it has been laid down that claim for compensation for lay off need not be for a pre-determined sum. Such an application is maintainable under section 33C(1) of ID Act. 7. It is fairly conceded by Mr. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate appearing for petitioner that only the compensation is payable due to closure which has to be worked out in terms of section 25-F of ID Act, salary is not payable which aspect is also conceded by Mr. R.C. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/employees' association. 8. Though in order (P.8) Labour Commissioner, M.P., Indore has mentioned that application is maintainable for compensation under Section 33C(1) of ID Act, however, while determining the amount payable on account of such closure, mind has not been applied by the Labour Commissioner as to the amount which was claimed in the application which admittedly was related to wages. The order is absolutely silent as to the basis of the calculation made with respect arriving at the figure of Rs. 35,87,055.98. 9. Thus, order (P.8) is set aside so far as regards determination to the liability of Rs. 35,87,055.98 is concerned, liability be worked out afresh in the light of decision rendered in this petition within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that what is payable is compensation on account of closure of petitioner factory to be worked out in terms of section 25-F of ID Act, thereafter RRC be issued for recovery of amount. Case be decided by the Labour Commissioner not by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. 10. With respect to wages, illegal termination and illegal closure of petitioner-factory, question is left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. 11. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order (P.8) is set aside with the aforesaid directions. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this petition. 12. C.C. as per rules.