ORDER : Ravi V. Malimath, J. 1. The petitioners and others were under the employment of the respondent. Respondent-Company was closed with effect from 15.02.1997. No notice was given to them or to the Union. On a claim being set up by the Union, a Reference was made to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (for short 'the Act'). The Reference was as to 'whether the employees were justified in demanding their reinstatement who have been terminated by the Management by illegally closing the industrial unit?'. If not, 'whether their demand is justified in the implementation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS') as per Clause 5 of the Settlement dated 14.02.1996?'. If not, 'whether their demand to work in the sister concern could be granted or not?'. By the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the Reference. Hence, the present petition. 2. Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside; that the Tribunal failed to consider the contentions advanced before it; that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the Reference made to it; that the closure of the respondent-Unit was illegal; that no notice was given to the Union or to the petitioner/employees before the closure; that the dispute raised by the petitioners comes within the definition of Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act; that having closed the Industrial Unit, the benefit of the VRS should have been extended to the petitioners and even that has not been extended to them. The finding therefore recorded are erroneous. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed by setting aside the order under Reference and to hold the Reference in favour of the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, Sri Naveen R. Metinamani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned order. He submits that there is no error committed by the Industrial Tribunal that calls for any interference; that the closure of the Firm is in accordance with law; that the VRS as propounded by them was offered to each one of the employees and the employees have declined to accept the Scheme. Having declined to accept the Scheme, they cannot subsequently plead any relief under the said Scheme. Therefore, the contention that VRS was not extended to the petitioners is incorrect. Having declined to accept the Scheme, they cannot subsequently plead any relief under the said Scheme. Therefore, the contention that VRS was not extended to the petitioners is incorrect. Hence, it is pleaded that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 5. While considering the various contentions of the parties, the Reference Court framed the following issues and additional issues: "1. Whether the Dharwad District Employees Association, Broadway was justified in demanding the management of Vivada Chemicals which alleged to have been closed on 15.02.1997 to reinstate 24 workers mentioned in the reference: 2. Whether the Dharwad District Employees Association was justified in demanding to enforce the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per the terms of the settlement between the workman and the management dated 14.02.1996? 3. Whether the Dharwad District Employees Association was justified in demanding to employ 24 workers in its sister concern, management of Joja Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 4. To what relief the workers are entitled?" Additional issues: "1. Whether the referred dispute is an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act? 2. Whether the reference is maintainable in view of the closure of the respondent establishment w.e.f. 15.02.1997? 3. Whether there is any Industrial Dispute exists in view of the closure of the establishment w.e.f. 15.02.1997? 4. What relief the parties are entitled for?" 6. It held all the issues in the negative. In coming to such a conclusion, the evidence of the petitioners themselves was relied upon. The evidence of WW-1 would indicate that as on the date of the closure namely as on 15.02.1997, the strength of the employees was only 48. The evidence of the Management witness namely MW-1 is also to the said effect. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter 5B of the Act would not be applicable. 7. Further more, MW-1 in his evidence has stated that the Management had formulated and discussed the VRS with the Union and a settlement was entered upon in terms of Ex. W1. However, the proposal was not accepted by the Union. Even in his cross-examination, W.W.-1 has stated that he was aware of the declaration of VRS after the said settlement as per Ex. W. 1 and he has also admitted that the said Scheme was not at all accepted by the workers. W1. However, the proposal was not accepted by the Union. Even in his cross-examination, W.W.-1 has stated that he was aware of the declaration of VRS after the said settlement as per Ex. W. 1 and he has also admitted that the said Scheme was not at all accepted by the workers. The evidence of the witness would clearly show that the duty cast upon the Management to formulate the VRS and to hold discussion with the employees and the Union was fully satisfied. It is the Union that had refused to accept the VRS. Therefore, the Management cannot be held responsible so far as offering the VRS to the Union is concerned. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is violation of Clause 5 of the said Settlement therefore cannot be accepted. It is very much the case of the Union themselves that they have declined to accept the same. It is based on this evidence that the Reference Court has rightly held that the Reference cannot be granted. 8. It is further contended by the petitioners that the Union has failed to properly espouse the cause of the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.H. JADHAV VS. M/S. FORBES GOKAKLTD., reported in (2005 (104) FLR 1005) to contend that if the case of the workman had not been properly espoused, the workman are entitled to seek relief. Reference is made to paragraph 6 in particular, which reads as follows: "6. As far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However, proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case. The Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union had espoused the appellant's case." 9. However, the Reference Court on considering the plea of the petitioners as well as the Management was of the view that the Union has appropriately espoused the case of the workman. The Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union had espoused the appellant's case." 9. However, the Reference Court on considering the plea of the petitioners as well as the Management was of the view that the Union has appropriately espoused the case of the workman. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no particular form prescribed in order to justiciate as to whether the espousal was proper or not. The same has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, each and every grievances of the petitioners have been rightly espoused by the Union. It, therefore, cannot be said that there was no proper espousal. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed. Rule discharged.