As per case facts, petitioners closed their factory and terminated respondent services, leading respondents to file a complaint alleging illegal closure and unfair labor practices. The Industrial Court ruled in ... favor of the respondents, citing illegal closure and directing wage payments. Petitioners challenged this via a Writ Petition, arguing the closure was lawful, major statutory provisions were inapplicable due to employee count and voluntary resignations, and the Industrial Court erred by considering employer motive and subsequent land use. The respondents maintained that the closure was a ploy to develop the land, settlements were fraudulent, and labor laws were violated. The High Court examined whether the Industrial Court’s findings regarding illegal closure, unfair labor practices, and the applicability of various Industrial Disputes Act sections were legally sound, concluding that the Industrial Court failed to establish the foundational facts for applying key statutory provisions, incorrectly assessed the validity of prior employee settlements, and lacked sufficient evidence for allegations of manipulative practices. The High Court determined that the Industrial Court’s judgment lacked proper legal and factual basis, leading to the quashing of its order and dismissal of the original complaint.