On these contentions the first question which arises for determination is whether compensation payable under sec. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act can fall under the _amended definition in sec. 2(vi)(d) of the Act and can be called 'wages'. The High Court thought that it was not but Mr. Shroff relied on ceirtain decisions of this Court to contest that part of the'' conclusion of the High Court. The Industrial -Disputes Act, which as ·enacted in .194 7, was a piece of legislation which mainly provided :machinery for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, has since then undergone frequent modifications. .In 1953, by Act 43 of that year Chapter VA consisting of secs. 25A to 25J was incorporated providing therein compensation for lay-off and retrenchment. It also provided a definition of retrenchment in sec. 2(00). Chapter VA, as it then stood, did not expressly provide for compensation for termination of service on account of transfer of an undertaking by an agreement or as a result of operation of law or the closure of the undertaking. Consequently, in Hariprasad, v. Divikar(') this Court held that retrenchment as d<efined in sec. 2( oo) and the word 'retrenched' in sec. 25F meant discharge of surplus labour or staff by the employer for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and did not include termination of services of all workmen on a bona fide closure of an undertaking or on a change of ownership or management thereof. This decision was followed first by an ordinance and then by Act 18 of 1957 incorporating in the Act the present ss. 25FF and 25FFF. It will be noticed that both these sections use the words "as -if the workman had been retrenched". The intention of the legislature was, tl1erefore, clear that it did not wish to place transfer and closure on the same footing as retrenchment under sec. 25F. This is apparent also from the fact that it left the dtfinition of retrenchment in sec. 2(oo) untouched in spite of the decision in Hariprasad's case('). The three sections, ss. 25F, 25FF and 25FFF also show that \Vhile under sec. 25F no retrenchment can be mad< until conditions therein set out are carried oht, the·other:twq:sections <lo nqt. lay down any such conditions. · A.U tbe .. three secti·ons, llowe.Yei·," (I) [1957] S.C.R. 121.
