JUDGMENT:- The order impugned in both these petitions is the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, holding that the Mill has committed unfair labour practice within meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. It has further directed the management to pay wages to the workman from 16.3.1996 till the date of closure of the Mills i.e. on 6.5.2002. 2. The petitioner Arvind Mahadev Gharat had joined Kohinoor Mills as a Sherar Machine Helper. On 18.1.1982 a strike was declared in the Mill. Though the strike was declared illegal, it continued. The Mills published notice on the notice board appealing to the workmen to resume their duties. Eventually, Kohinoor Mills closed with effect from 6.5.2002. The petitioner-workman addressed a letter stating that time and again he had been reporting for work and that the Mills had offered him no employment. He, therefore, filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act which had been allowed. 3. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman, submitted the Industrial Court though correctly gave a direction to pay wages to the workman with effect from the date of notice i.e. 16.3.1996 till the date of closure of the Mill on 6.5.2002, omitted to direct payment of closure compensation under section 25-0. The learned counsel for the respondent Mills submitted that the Mills had issued a public notice asking the workers to report for duty and had also entered into an agreement with the authorised Union to take back such workers who reported for duty before a certain date. According to the Mills, since the petitioner-workman did not report, no relief ought to have been granted to him. It was next contended on behalf of the Mills that there was no evidence that the workman was not employed elsewhere during the aforesaid period and, therefore, wages also ought not to have been granted to him. The learned counsel for the Mills, however, accepted fairly that no termination order was issued nor was closure compensation paid to the workman. 4. In the circumstances, it is clear that the contract of employment must be taken to have continued since admittedly it was never terminated by the Mills. The employment must be taken to be continued till the closure of the Mills since the employment was never terminated. 4. In the circumstances, it is clear that the contract of employment must be taken to have continued since admittedly it was never terminated by the Mills. The employment must be taken to be continued till the closure of the Mills since the employment was never terminated. Moreover, since admittedly the Mills were closed down, the employer was bound to pay closure compensation as provided under section 25-0 of the Act. There is no merit in the contention that there ought to have been evidence of the workman not having been employed before the period of closure. Such a contention may have been available to the Mills had the Mills terminated the services of the workman and, thereafter, if the workman had prayed for reinstatement and back wages. The workman whose services have not been terminated is not bound in law to prove that he was not employed elsewhere obviously since the contract of employment with the employer still subsists. There is thus no merit in the contention on behalf of the Mills. 5. In the circumstances, Writ Petition No.2507 of 2005 is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay closure compensation in accordance with law as on 6.5.2002 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 6.5.2002 till date. Rule is made absolute in Writ Petition No.2507 of 2005. Insofar as Writ Petition No.288 of 2006 is concerned, the same is dismissed and the rule is discharged. Ordered accordingly.