JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 1.3.2000 passed in proceedings under Section 33 C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in Misc. Case No. 80 of 1994. 2. An application was filed before the Labour Court by the respondent Nos. 2/a to 2/p claiming bonus and retrenchment/closure compensation as provided under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Act, 1994 on the ground that the petitioner-establishment had permanently closed down. 3. The case of the respondents was that the establishment had closed down with effect from 25.6.1994 and services of the respondent Nos. 2/a to 2/p had been dispensed with without giving retrenchment/closure compensation on account of closure of the establishment. 4. On behalf of the establishment one Sri Surajbhan appeared as witness and his statement was recorded. In his statement Surajbhan has mentioned that due to financial crises being faced by the establishment, the establishment wanted to shift to some other place after selling the property and part of the machinery, using the proceeds thereof. The workmen-respondents did not allow the removal of the machinery and in fact prevented the removal of the machinery as a result of which the establishment closed down on 25.6.1994. It is also stated that a report to this effect was also sent to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Mathura 27.6.1994 and the report was also obtained on 1.7.1994. On 2.7.1994 a registered letter was also sent to the respondents-workmen to report for work but they did not report to work. A notice was also published in the ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 28.7.1994 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The Labour Officer, Mathura also repeatedly requested the workmen to report for work but the respondents-workmen categorically stated that they did not wish to shift to the new place of the establishment. 5. The Labour Court, however, has held that as per the statement of Sri Surajbhan employer witness, the establishment had permanently closed down on 25.6.1994 and the services of the respondents had been dispensed with without paying them closure compensation under Section 25-FFF and the Labour Court vide order dated 1.3.2000 has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,37,250/- 6. I have heard Sri Arun Saunders, assisted by Sri Rakesh Bagga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2,37,250/- 6. I have heard Sri Arun Saunders, assisted by Sri Rakesh Bagga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2/a to 2/p and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 7. From a perusal of the para-4 of the impugned order it is evident that it was the clear case of the petitioner-establishment that because of financial crises being faced by them the establishment had to shift to some other place by selling of the land as well as part of the machinery. The petitioner had sought to run the establishment by taking a building on rent. It is also noted that when the petitioner-establishment tried to remove the machinery for purposes of shifting, the workmen objected and obstructed the establishment as a result of which the establishment had to close down on 25.6.1994. It is also noted that on 27.6.1994 a registered notice was sent to the workmen which is filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Information to the Labour Enforcement Officer was also sent informing him that the workmen had refused to come for work, which was filed as ext-3 before the Labour Court. It is also mentioned that the said officer tried to reconcile with the workmen to report for work but the workmen did not accept the suggestion or request and insisted on being paid closure compensation. The notice was also published in the “Amar Ujala” newspaper on 28.7.1994 requesting the workmen to report for work which was also filed as Ext.-8 before the Labour Court. 8. Considering all these facts and statement of the employer-witness that the petitioner-employer wanted to sell the land and part of the machinery and to shift to a new place, as well as the findings recorded by the Labour Court in para 4 of the impugned order dated 1.3.2000 it nowhere transpires that the petitioner-establishment wanted to close down the establishment permanently. In fact what transpires is that because of the obstruction and obstinate attitude of the workmen the establishment had to close down on 25.6.1994 but from the registered notices dated 27.6.1994 sent to the workmen as well as the report sent to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Mathura and the Newspaper publication dated 28.7.1994 it cannot be assumed or presumed that the establishment wanted to close down permanently. This appears to be a case where the workmen deliberately tried to force the petitioner-establishment from functioning by preventing it from shifting to a new place but it cannot be presumed that the petitioner-establishment intended to close down permanently. In such circumstances, the award of closure compensation or bonus or leave encashment to the workmen under Section 25 FFF cannot be said to be justified. 9. Sri Rajesh Tiwari at this stage relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case in Chief Mining Engineer, M/s East India Coal Co., Ltd. Bararee Colliery Dhanbad v. Rameshwar and others, AIR 1968 SC 218 , submitted that the proceedings under Section 33 C (2) were maintainable and the Labour Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial workman and his employer. 10. There is no dispute with the legal position settled by the Supreme Court which has been repeated thereafter in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The question in the present case is whether the establishment had closed down permanently or whether it only wanted to shift to a different place by selling land and excess machinery and whether the workmen-respondents had not created a situation by preventing the establishment from functioning thereby forcing the petitioner-establishment to closing down on 25.6.1994. 11. In my opinion, whether the closure was permanent or not; whether it was a deliberate act on the part of the workmen or not; and whether the establishment actually intended to shift to a different place and continued to function or not in the light of the various notices issued to the workmen and the newspaper publication and the report sent to the Labour Enforcement Officer, who also made best effort to reason with the workmen to resume work, the matter was not cognisable within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in exercise of powers under Section 33 C (2) and the Labour Court while passing the impugned order dated 1.3.2000 had definitely exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining claim petition of the workmen. 12. For the reasons aforesaid writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.3.2000 is quashed. Parties to bear their own cost. ——————