Dear Mr. PBS Kumar,
Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Sections 25C to 25E) relating to layoff and retrenchment applies to those units in which not less than 50 workers are employed. This chapter does not apply to units employing more than 100 workers (to which Chapter V-B applies).
For companies employing less than 100 workers, prior intimation to the government of its intention to close down the company and thereby retrench the workmen is required to be given (Section 25F). At the same time, for companies to which Chapter V-B applies, prior permission from the government is required to close down (Section 25O). Please correct me if there exist any state amendments regarding the number of employees and the application of these two chapters, viz, Chapter V-A and V-B.
The issue was not, in fact, related to closure and the legality of such closure. Closure has been carried out without any intimation. Since there are no dues pending to EPFO or ESIC, filing a nil return for the forthcoming period is sufficient. If current year details are required, the same can be managed by consolidation of monthly returns. In order to claim the PF, since the authorized signatory has also left, authorities mentioned in the Act, viz, Bank Manager, etc., shall be approached, and it will not be a problem for the employees to get it. Alternatively, they can easily transfer the PF to a new account when they join another firm.
As the employees do not have any dues in the form of salary, the question of filing a suit against the company (under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act?) will not arise. What is required is to seek protection from clients who have dues from the company. This will become a law and order matter and requires the attention of the government and local administration.
As stated earlier, it requires general attention, and I believe a solution will be found soon.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K