Seelan Raj And Ors vs Presiding Officer 1St Additional ...

The Supreme Court held that the closure of the data processing division of the respondent company violated Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the establishment employed more than 100 workmen and required prior permission from the State Government for closure. The Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the terminated workmen with back wages, rejecting the respondent's claim that it was not a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. The judgment emphasized that the establishment was indeed covered under the ID Act, thus upholding the Labour Court's findings.