JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-company has preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2010 passed by a Learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge finally disposed of the writ petition being WP No. 947 of 2009 filed by the workmen of the appellant-company on merits. From the records, we find that the said appellant-company declared closure of its head office on 17th June, 2003 by issuing post-dated cheques. However, the aforesaid post-dated cheques were not encashed. It was urged on behalf of the workmen before the learned Single Judge that the appellant-company did not disburse payment of compensation to the workmen concerned prior to the declaration of closure in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (West Bengal Amendment). The said proviso to sub-section (1) of section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (West Bengal Amendment) is set out hereunder: In section 25FFF of the Act in sub-section (1): (1) before the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted:- Provided that prior payment of compensation to the workmen shall be condition precedent to the closure of any undertaking. 2. In the instant case, appellant-company issued post-dated cheques for making payment of compensation to the workmen concerned. In terms of West Bengal Amendment of sub-section (1) of section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, prior payment of compensation to the workmen concerned is a condition precedent for declaring closure of any undertaking. In the present case, by issuing post-dated cheques, appellant-company did not comply with the aforesaid mandatory condition precedent for declaring the closure and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the closure declared by the company is a nullity for not making the aforesaid prior payment of compensation to the workmen concerned. 3. For the aforementioned reasons, we find no illegality and/or irregularity in the findings of the Learned Single Judge and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge. However, with regard to the payment of back wages to the workmen concerned, specific directions have already been issued by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to pass any further directions in this regard. 4. Mr. However, with regard to the payment of back wages to the workmen concerned, specific directions have already been issued by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to pass any further directions in this regard. 4. Mr. Malay Kumar Basu, learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant-company submits that a substantial amount has already been paid to the workmen concerned during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Needless to mention that the appellant-company will be entitled to adjust the aforesaid amount against the future claim and/or payment of the workmen concerned, if any. 6. Since the learned Tribunal could not proceed with the matter due to the pendency of the present appeal, we direct the learned Tribunal to dispose of the pending application at an early date, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid directions, we affirm the judgment and order under appeal passed by the Learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal without awarding any costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Appeal dismissed