ORDER : K. Chandru, J. 1. The writ petition is filed by the Management of International Trading Company, challenging the common Award passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. Nos. 205 to 210/2005 dated June 21, 2007. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court allowed the industrial disputes and held that the workmen are entitled to claim re-employment, with continuity of service from February 1997 and they are also entitled to claim 50% of backwages from April 2005. The writ petition was admitted on October 24, 2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, when vacate stay application was filed, this Court made the stay absolute on December 10, 2008. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workmen were reinstated. But however, they were not paid wages on par with the current rate of wages paid to other employees. Therefore, by an order dated December 10, 2008, this Court directed the Management to pay the difference of salary to the contesting respondents from September 17, 2007 and continue to pay salary from December 2008 as was paid to one N. Kuppan. The arrears of difference in pay was also directed to pay within a period of four weeks. 2. Subsequently, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for resolving the dispute. But as there was no possibility of settlement, the matter was referred back to this Court for dismissal on merits. 3. The petitioner was running a leather industry in North Arcot District. Due to the pollution created by the tanneries, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum. The Supreme Court passed orders from time to time. Subsequently, by an interim order dated September 8, 1993, the Supreme Court found that some of the tanneries including the petitioner's tannery have not installed pollution control device and therefore, they were ordered to be closed with immediate effect. The District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police, Vellore District were directed to enforce the order. It was pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court, the petitioner Company was made to stop production. 4. The District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police, Vellore District were directed to enforce the order. It was pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court, the petitioner Company was made to stop production. 4. It is the claim of the Management that they subsequently entered into a settlement with the workmen u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act) agreeing to pay their terminal benefits including gratuity and the workmen settled their accounts and passed on receipts. Notwithstanding the same, the contesting respondents raised disputes before the Conciliation Officer and on failure of conciliation, took up the dispute before the Labour Court. 5. The Labour Court registered the disputes as I.D. Nos. 205 to 210/2005 and notices were issued to the Management. The workmen filed individual claim statements dated Nil (October 2005) and the Management filed individual counter statement dated January 16, 2006. 6. In the counter statement, they had stated that the workmen were paid compensation subsequent to the order of closure made by the Supreme Court and notices were sent to the authorities including PF and ESI. Effluent treatment plant was constructed after obtaining permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the company started operations from February 1, 1997. Since the workmen have received compensation in accordance with law, which includes right of re-employment, they cannot seek for re-employment after several years. 7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workmen, D. Balaji (2nd respondent) and Rajendran (6th respondent) were examined as W.W. 1 and W.W. 2. On the side of the Management, no witnesses were examined. On the side of the workmen, 9 documents were filed and were marked as Exhibits W1 to W9. They are letters written by the workers to the Management seeking re-employment. On the side of the Management, 17 documents were filed and were marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-17. 8. The Labour Court on an analysis of materials placed before it (both oral and documentary) came to the conclusion that though the factory was closed, subsequent to the re-opening of the factory, they are entitled for reinstatement in terms of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. It cannot be said that there was any delay in raising a dispute as the workmen had sent letters in Exhibits W1 to W9. It cannot be said that there was any delay in raising a dispute as the workmen had sent letters in Exhibits W1 to W9. Hence, the workers cannot be said to be guilty of laches, When once workers are entitled for reinstatement u/s 25-H from the date of re-opening of the factory and when the same was denied, they are also entitled for backwages from the date on which they were denied re-employment. Since the workmen were not employed elsewhere, the Labour Court thought fit to give 50% of backwages together with service continuity. 9. Subsequent to the Award, the Management sent a letter dated September 12, 2007 asking the workmen to report for work without prejudice to their right to challenge the impugned Award granting backwages. The contention made by the Management was they never retrenched the workmen u/s 25-F of the I.D. Act and the closure was made on a direction being issued by the Supreme Court. If it is not a case of retrenchment, the question of re-employment together with backwages will not arise. This contention of the Management cannot be accepted because the petitioner never closed the factory in terms of getting approval from the competent authority u/s 25-0 of the I.D. Act. The direction issued by the Supreme Court was only to stop work till the effluent treatment plant is set up by them and that cannot be said to be circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner Management. It is only a requirement to comply with the environmental loss of the country. Assuming that in order to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court, the workmen were sent out of service, the moment the plant was reopened, the workers are entitled for re-employment as their service were terminated not due to any fault of theirs. Therefore, the Labour Court was correct in stating that denial of re-employment to the contesting respondents is fully justified. 10. The only question to be decided is whether the Labour Court was right in ordering 50% of the backwages from the date of the industrial dispute. In the present case, the closure was effected by the direction of the Supreme Court and thereafter pursuant to the Award, the workmen were also reinstated and paid wages on par with the other workers who were similarly placed. In the present case, the closure was effected by the direction of the Supreme Court and thereafter pursuant to the Award, the workmen were also reinstated and paid wages on par with the other workers who were similarly placed. The question of backwages will arise only when termination was held to be illegal. In the present case, the workmen had sought for right of re-employment u/s 25-H of the I.D. Act whereas the closure of the establishment cannot be considered to be retrenchment though the compensation paid is equivalent to retrenchment compensation. Hence, this Court is not persuaded to accept the Award of the Labour Court to the extent of ordering 50% of backwages from the date of the industrial dispute without there being any justification for the same. In the light of the above, the impugned common Award in I.D. Nos. 205 to 210/2005 dated June 21, 2007, in so far as it had granted 50% of backwages alone is set aside. The fact that the workers have been reinstated has been recorded, there is no difficulty in their continuing in employment. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.