Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a trade union of workmen employed by the 2nd respondent management. In this Writ Petition, they have challenged an award passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.326 of 2002. By the impugned award, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner trade union and declined to grant any relief to 19 workers, whose retrenchment with effect from 10.3.2001 was the subject matter of the industrial dispute. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 23.7.2007. On notice from this Court, the Registry summoned the original records for perusal by this Court and it has also been perused by this Court. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner trade union as against retrenchment made against 19 workers employed by the 2nd respondent management in their working place at Plot No.38, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur, raised an industrial dispute, which the State Government by G.O.(D) No.575, Labour and Employment Department dated 23.7.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication. In the reference indicated above, the Labour Court was directed to consider whether the retrenchment of 19 workers was legally justified and if not, to what relief they are entitled to? 4. The Labour Court, Salem registered the dispute as I.D.No.326 of 2002 and issued Notice to both sides. The petitioner union filed a claim statement dated 10.8.2003. The contention raised by the petitioner union was that the management was carrying on the manufacturing activity in Rayakota Road, Hosur in the same building and the retrenchment was illegal. The other workers during the relevant time were paid bonus at the rate of 20%. When these workers claim the same bonus, after dispute was raised, they were paid only 10%. The management deliberately retrenched 19 workers and it was not a case of real closure as the management has not surrendered the factory licence and cancelled the lease agreement. 5. The 2nd respondent management filed a counter statement dated 21.2.2003 refuting the stand of the petitioner union. It was contended by them due to acute competition from other countries like China, there was a loss in their export market and they wanted to stop production. For some time, they were getting orders from their sister concern for repairing the existing gadgets. Then that work was also stopped. Having left with no other option, these 19 workers have been retrenched by the management. For some time, they were getting orders from their sister concern for repairing the existing gadgets. Then that work was also stopped. Having left with no other option, these 19 workers have been retrenched by the management. They were paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Due notice was sent to the Labour Department under Form -R along with the annexure. Therefore, there was no illegality in the retrenchment effected as against 19 workers with effect from 12.03.2001. The contention of the workers that the factory work was carrying on in the godown at Rayakota Road, was baseless and they are not engaging any contract worker to carry on the same work. On the complaint made by the union, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories visited the said premises and found that no such activity was carrying on. It is unnecessary to close the business and therefore there was no question of surrendering their factory licence. As the present case is one of retrenchment, the legal requirement under Section 25-F has been complied with. 6. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the trade union, five workers were examined as W.W.1 to W.W.5 and on their side 20 documents were filed and marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.20. On the side of the management, one Nagarajan was examined and they filed 32 documents, which were marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.32. Ex.M.9 series is the compensation paid to 19 workers on the vouchers received from them for having paid the retrenchment compensation. 7. During the pendency of the dispute, the Labour Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner in terms of Rule 42 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, which gives power to the Labour Court to make an entry or inspection of any factory, workshop or other place or premises whatsoever and inspect the same or any work, machinery, appliance and also interrogate any person. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Labour Court visited the premises after due notice to the parties and gave a report dated 6.4.2004. the said report was taken on file as Ex.C.1 and was marked during the cross examination of R.W.1. The report shows that there was no activity carrying on in the said premises. Therefore, there was not even a Generator in the Generator Room and there was lot of dust and cobwebs found in the said premises. the said report was taken on file as Ex.C.1 and was marked during the cross examination of R.W.1. The report shows that there was no activity carrying on in the said premises. Therefore, there was not even a Generator in the Generator Room and there was lot of dust and cobwebs found in the said premises. He submitted that there was no proof for any manufacturing activity going on in the said premises and no workers were found. Though at the relevant time, some authorised officials of the management stated that the work was carrying on in other premises, the Advocate Commissioner declined to visit those premises as those places are not covered by the Warrant of Appointment issued by the Labour Court. It is rather unfortunate that the Labour Court after obtaining a report under Ex.C.1 did not even show the same as part of the documents annexed to the impugned award. 8. In any event, the Labour Court after analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary and after referring to the report of the Advocate Commissioner in Ex.C.1, in paragraph 11 found that contention of the workmen that the work was carrying on in the same premises, was denied and the question of surrendering factory licence or other lease agreement will not arise, since it is the case of retrenchment. Inasmuch as the workmen having been paid retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and it has not been found to be proved that the management had used the retrenchment as a tool to dispense with the service of the workmen, the Labour Court declined to grant any relief and rejected the industrial dispute. 9. Similar contentions were raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. This Court on perusal of the records produced do not find any infirmities in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Inasmuch as there is no allegation of violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Commissioner's report in Ex.C.1 clearly shows that there was no other activity carrying on in the premises in question, this Court do not find any case is made out to interfere with the impugned award. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.