Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 · Chapter VA: Lay-Off and Retrenchment
Section 25FFF: Compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was repealed and replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 from 21 November 2025. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
When an undertaking closes for any reason, workmen with at least one year of continuous service are entitled to notice and compensation as if retrenched.
- If the closure is due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the employer's control, compensation cannot exceed three months' average pay.
- Financial losses, unsold stock, expiry of a lease or licence, or exhaustion of minerals do not count as such circumstances.
- A mine closed for exhausted minerals owes nothing if workmen get alternative work on the same terms without a break in service.
- Workers on a construction project completed within two years get no compensation, but get it if the work takes longer.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched:
Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of section 25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. [Explanation.—An undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of—
(i) financial difficulties (including financial losses); or
(ii) accumulation of undisposed of stocks; or
(iii) the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it; or
(iv) in a case where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on; shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this sub-section.] [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an undertaking engaged in mining operations is closed down by reason merely of exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on, no workman referred to in that sub-section shall be entitled to any notice or compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25F, if—
(a) the employer provides the workman with alternative employment with effect from the date of closure at the same remuneration as he was entitled to receive, and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him, immediately before the closure;
(b) the service of the workman has not been interrupted by such alternative employment; and
(c) the employer is, under the terms of such alternative employment or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by such alternative employment.
(1B) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (1A), the expressions “minerals” and “mining operations” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (a) and (d) of section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957).]
(2) Where any undertaking set-up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other construction work is closed down on account of the completion of the work within two years from the date on which the undertaking had been set-up, no workman employed therein shall be entitled to any compensation under clause (b) of section 25F, but if the construction work is not so completed within two
years, he shall be entitled to notice and compensation under that section for every [completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months.]
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 25FFF
- Naba Kumar Mandal v. Ircon International Ltd
- K.P.Singh v. U.O.I & Ors
- Jyotirmay Nandi v. R.K. Arora Official Liquidator
-
Shaji Poulose v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Others
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, if competent to impose, by way of Guidelines, a numerical restriction on the maximum number of tax audits that could be accepted by a Chartered Accountant,…
- Mukesh Tyagi v. Gujrat State Export Corporation Ltd
- Ster Lite Industries (India) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. Etc.
- K. Alex v. Delhi State Mineral Dev. Corpn.
- State of U.P. & Anr. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors.
- M/S. Hondaram Ramchandra v. Yeshwant Mahadev Kadam (Dead) Through Lrs.
- M/S. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Ors.
- Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Inland Steam Navigation Works' Union v. Union of India and Ors.
- Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen Through Rehabilitation Employees Union and Anr.
- Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station Ukai, Gujarat v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. Etc.
- Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Pvt. Limited v. Bharat Barrel Employees Union
- S.G. Chemical and Dyes Trading Employees' Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Another
- Gamon India Limited v. Niranjan Dass
- Avon Services (Production Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana Faridabad & Ors .
- Jain Bros. & Others v. The Union of India & Others
- Navalkha & Sons v. Sri Ramanya Das & Ors.
- Payment of Wages Inspector v. Surajmal Mehta & Anr.
- Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. Their Workmen
- M/S. Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others.
- Darbar Shri Vira Vala Surag'Vala, Vadia v. The State of Saurashtra (No-W Bombay)