Holding

The two units were independent establishments; the closure of Unit I was a bona‑fide closure of an independent unit, so section 25‑G does not apply.

Summary

Sha Steel Treatment operated two separate metal‑processing units, Unit I (established 1963 with 32 workers) and Unit II (established 1975 with 75 workers, located about 200 m apart). Unit I was closed on 15 Feb 1982 due to alleged indiscipline and low production, and closure compensation was offered. The workmen of Unit I claimed that the two units were functionally integrated, that the closure was a pre‑text for trade‑union victimisation, and that the "last‑come, first‑go" rule under section 25‑G of the Industrial Disputes Act should apply. The Industrial Tribunal held the units were independent and the closure bona‑fide, dismissing the workmen’s claim. The Bombay High Court Single Judge reversed, finding functional integrality and applying section 25‑G; the Division Bench upheld that view. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that mere common ownership, proximity, and identical business do not create functional integrality; Unit I was an independent establishment whose genuine closure did not attract section 25‑G, and the Tribunal’s award was restored.

Issues considered

Whether the two units constitute a single establishment with functional integrality for the purposes of section 25‑G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the closure of Unit I amounts to a genuine closure of an independent unit or to retrenchment requiring application of the "last‑come, first‑go" principle under section 25‑G.
Whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement and back wages under section 25‑G.
Whether the High Court’s interference with the Tribunal’s award was justified.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10, s. 12(5), s. 25-F, s. 25-FF, s. 25-FFF, s. 25-G

Subjects

industrial disputeclosure of establishmentfunctional integralitysection 25-Glast come first goretrenchmentbona fide closuretrade union victimisation

Judgment

A
!SHA STEEL TREATMENT, BOMBAY
v.
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS, BOMBAY & '
ANR.

B FEBRUARY 25, 1987

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, section 25G-Applicability of the princi-
ple of "last come, first go" thereunder-Appellant firm carrying on
C business of metal processing with two Units commenced in 1963 and ·~ ...
1975 respectively-Both units had independent location, separate fac-
tory licences, separate municipal licences, separate accounts and ba-
lance sheet, and no inter transferability-Unit I closed completely on
15.2.1982 due to indiscipline of the 32 workmen employed therein t
gradually by first reducing their shifts from three to two-Closure com-
D pensation offered-Whether the closure is ba.d in law on the ground that
there was functional integrality between the two units and were for all
practicable purposes parts of one establishment-Whether the proyi-
sions of section 25G of the Act applied to the facts of the case.

The appellant carries on the business of metal processing i.e. heat
E treatment of metals. In 1963 it established a factory with about 32 t- .
workmen-called "No. 1 Unit". In the year 1975 another factory called
"No II unit" was established for carrying on the same kind of business
employing about 75 workmen about 200 yards away from the No. 1 Unit.
Both the Units had independent location, separate factory licences and
separate municipal licences. The two Units bad separate stores and
F maintained separate accounts and balance sheets. The workmen of both ~
the units were also employed independently and there was a separate
muster roll in respect of each of the two units. There was no rule or ·+
condition regarding the inter-transferability of the workmen. However, •
there was by mistake the name of one workman by name Kishore Ram
of Unit 1 entered in the muster roll of the II Unit in October 1980 and it
G had been scored out later.

On finding that the workmen of No. 1 Unit were wilfully slacking
their work and that there was growing indiscipline among them, the +-
appellant decided in the year 1981-82 to reduce the three shifts working
previously to two shifts. The indiscipline and the lack of production
H continued and on it becoming impossible for the appellant to carry on

414
l.S.T. v. ENG. WORKERS 415

with even the two shifts as reduced, the appellant came to the unhappy
conclusion that it had no alternative left but to close down the No. 1 A
Unit altogether with effect from 15.2.82 and closure compensation was
offered to the entire staff of 32 workmen.

The workmen of the I Unit raised through their Union, namely,
Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay an industrial dispute B
reference (IT) No. 218 of 1982. In the statement of claim filed by the
workmen it was urged; (i) that the two units which were being run by
the appellant had functional integrality and were for all purposes parts
of one establishment and that the workmen were mutually transferable
from one unit to the other; (ii) that the reasons given by the manage-
ment for closing down Unit No.1 is false, the action of the management
was arbitrary and was colourable exercise of the management's power of C
closure; (iii) the impugned action was by way of victimisation for the
trade union activities of the said workmen in Unit No 1 and the princi-
ple of "last come,'first go" while terminating the services of the work-
men having not been followed as required by section 25-G of the Act,
the termination was illegal. The Tribunal rejected the case of the work- D
men that the closure was in retaliation to the trade union activities of
workmen and found that there was no victimisation of the workmen
and the workmen concerned were not entitled to be reinstated as the
closure of the 1 Unit had become legally effective from 15.12.1982 and
passed its award to that effect on September 6, 1983. Aggrieved by the
Award passed by the Tribunal, the workmen filed a petition under E
Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of
Bombay challenging the legality of the Award. The learned Single
Judge, before whom the writ petition came up for consideration,
re.versed the Award of the Tribunal and remanded the proceedings
back to the Tribunal for afresh disposal. By the time, the decision was
rendered, there were only 14 workmen, who were interested in the F
dispute, and therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Tribunal
to consider whether the termination of services of any of the 14 work-
men, whose claim for reinstatement still subsisted, was done in violation
of the principles laid down under section· 25-G of the Act. Aggrieved by
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. That appeal having G
been dismissed the appellant has come by way of special leave to the
Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court,

HELD: 1. The existence of the unity of ownership, supervision H
416 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 2 S.C.R.

A and control in respect of the two units, the fact that the conditions of the
service of the workmen of the two Units were substantially indentical,
the fact that both the units are situate at a distance of 200 meters and
that the business of heat treatment processing in the two Units are the
same are not by themselves sufficient in the eye of law for holding that
there was functional integrality between the two Units. This is a clear
B case of closure of an independent unit and not of a part of an
establishment. [422D-E)

Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Mis
Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., [1974) l LLJ 499 followed. ~~' ...

c S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees' Union v. S.G.
Chemicals and Dyes Trading Ltd. & Anr., [1986) 2 SCC 624
distinguished.

2. The question of. application of section 25-G of the Act arises
only when the services of the workmen are retrenched within the mean-
D
ing of section 25F and not when sections 25FF, and 25FFF are applic-
able. If the case is one of genuine closure then the ques.tion of applying
section 25-G of the Act which is applicable to a case of retrenchment
would not arise. It is not the case of the workmen in the present case
that the II Unit could not continue to function after the closure of the I
Unit. In fact the II Unit is continuing to function as usual even now
E notwithstanding the stoppage of the activities at the I Unit. [423C-E)

Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, [1980) 3 SCR 884, relied
on.

3. It is not necessary that in the order to effect closure of business
F
the management should close down all the branches of its business. A
genuine closure of a Unit even though it did not amount to closure of the
business could not be interfered with by an industrial Tribunal. The
closure was stoppage of part of the activity or business of the manage-
ment and such stoppage is an act of management which is entirely in the
discretion of. the management. No Industrial Ttibunal could interfere
G
with the discretion exercised in such a matter. [423F-H; 424A-B)
+-
'
Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors.,
[1973) 3 SCR 303; Workmen of the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development
Co. Ltd. Guntur v. Management of the Indian Leaf Tobacco Develop-
H ment Co. Ltd., Guntur [1969] 2 SCR 282 followed.
-
< I.S.T: v. ENG. WORKERS [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 417

4. The two factors; namely: (i) the provident fund accounts of the A
emp~yees and the Employees' State Insurance accounts of the two units
had common numbers with the authorities concerned and (ii) settle-·
ments containing similar terms had been entered into in 197 4 between
the management and the workmen of the two units are not sufficient for
holding that the two units were one and the same notwithstanding the fact
that the nature of the business carried 011 :n them was the same. [424B-D] B

5. On a consideration of the entire material it is clear that (i) the

- .,,. Tribunal had not committed any error in recording the findings which
called for interference at the hands of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution; (ii) this case is one of bona fide closure of an inde-
pendent unit of husiness--and not a case of termination of services of C
workmen requiring consideration on remand, by the Tribunal in the
light of s.25-G of the Act; (iii) it was a case where the judgment of the
High Court if maintained would result in a wholly unjust situation in
which a corresponding number of workmen in the II Unit would he
prejudicially affected even though they had nothing to do with the 1st
Unit. [424E-H] D

Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [i962] I LLJ 409,
followed.

CIVIL APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2912
of 1986. E

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.85 of the Bombay High
Court in Appeal No. 262of1985.

J.P. Cama and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
F
V.N. Ganpule for the Respondents,

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,

) VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant is M/s. lsha Steel Treat-
ment, Bombay-A firm carrying on the business of metal processing, G
i.e., heat treatment of metals. In the year 1963 it established a factory
(hereinafter referred to as the 'I Unit') for the purpose of carrying on
the business of metal processing with about 32 workmen. Nearly 12
years after the establishment of the I Unit it established a second
factory (hereinafter referred to as the "II Unit') for carrying on the
same kind of business employing about 75 workmen about 200 yards H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. '

away from the I Unit. Both the units had independent location, sepa-
A
rate factory licences and separate municipal licences. The said two
units also had separate stores and maintained separate accounts and
balance sheets. The workmen of both the units were also employed
independently and there was a separate muster roll in respect of each
of the two units. There was no rule or condition regarding the inter-
B transferability of the workmen. On finding that the workmen of the I
Unit were wilfully slacking their work and that there was growing
indiscipline among them, the appellant decided in the year 1981-82 to
reduce the three shifts working previously to two shifts. The indisci-
pline and the lack of production continued and on it becoming impossi-
ble for the appellant to carry on with even the aforesaid two shifts as
reduced, the appellant came to the unhappy conclusion that it had no
c alternative but to close down the I Unit altogether. The aforesaid
closure of the I Unit (set up in 1963) took effect on lS.12.1982 and
closure compensation was offered to the entire staff of the 32 work-
men. The workmen of the I Unit raised through their Union, namely,
Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay, an industnal dispute
D before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Bombay
District Office, Bombay, who in exercise of the powers delegated to
him, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 read with section
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') referred to Shri B.L. Borude, Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra, Bombay the dispute between the appellant and the
E workmen employed in the I Unit over the demand for reinstatement
with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from
15.2.1982. The said reference was registered as Reference (IT) No.
218 of 1982 before the Tribunal.

In the statement of claim filed by the workmen it was urged that
F the two units which were being run by the appellant had functional
integrality and were for all purposes parts of the establishment and
that the workmen were mutually transferable from one unit to the
other. It was further stated that the workmen were originally members
of Mazdoor Congress which, according to them, could not improve
their service conditions. Therefore, they decided to join another
G union, namely, the Association of Engineering Workers and were '
canvassing amongst themselves for organising under the banner of the
Association of Engineering Workers. They further pleaded that on the
management coming to know about it, it tried to persuade the workers
not to join the said Association. On the workmen not agreeing to the
suggestion made by the management, the management in an attempt
H to retaliate against the move of the workmen, removed 22 workmen on
I.S.T. v. ENG. WORKERS !VENKATARAMIAH, J.J 419

15.2. )982 alleging that the I Unit was making a Joss, that the workmen
A
had resorted to giving less production, that there was indiscipline in
the I Unit and, therefore, the management was closing down the said
unit. The workmen pleaded that the action of the management was
arbitrary and was a colourable exercise of the management's power of
closure. It was alleged that the impugned action was by way of victimi-
sation for the trade union activities of the said workmen. They claimed B
that the principle of 'last come, first go' while terminating the services
of the workmen having not been followed as required by section 25-G
of the Act, the termination was illegal. The appellant resisted the
claim made by the workmen. It pleaded inter alia that the closure of
the I Unit was due to the non-co-operation and indiscipline on the part
of the workmen, that the two units were independent of each other
and there was no functional integrality between them. The manage- c
ment denied that there was any rule or service condition permitting
transfer of workmen from one factory to another. The management
stated that it was always willing to pay the compensation payable on
closure to the workmen concerned and that section 25-G of the Act
was inapplicable to the case. After recording the evidence tendered by D
the parties and hearing the arguments urged on their behalf, the
Tribunal held that the two units were independent of each other, there
was no common seniority list of the workmen of the two units and
there was no rule or practice of transferring workmen from one factory
to the other. The Tribunal rejected the case of the workmen that the
closure was in retaliation to the trade union activities of workmen. It E
also found that there was no victimisation of the workmen and the
workmen concerned were not entitled to be reinstated as the closure of
the I Unit had become legally effective from 15.2.1982. Accordingly, it
rejected the· demand made by the workmen by its Award dated
September 6, 1983. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal,
+ the workmen filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of F
India before the High Court of Bombay challenging the legality of the
Award. The learned Single Judge, before whom the writ petition came
up for consideration, reversed the Award of the Tribunal and
remanded the proceedings back to the Tribunal for afresh disposal. By
the time the decision was rendered, there were only 14 workmen, who
were interested in the dispute .. The learned Single Judge, therefore, G
directed the Tribunal to consider whether the termination of services
of any of the 14 workmen, whose claim for reinstatement still sub-
sisted, was done in violation of the principles laid down under section
25-G of the Act. The learned Single Judge also directed the Tribunal
to determine whether the workmen were entitled to reinstatement and
if the Tribunal found that they were entitled to such reinstatement the H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A question as to the grant of back wages should also be considered by it. >r
It should be stated here that the learned Single Judge made it clear \
that the finding of the Tribunal that the Association of workmen had
'failed to establish that the services of the workmen were terminated
because of their joining the petitioner union' was not disturbed. The
learned Single Judge, however, found that there was functional integ-
B rality between the two units and iil that connection observed thus:

"In my judgment the fact that the two units are situate
within a distance of 200 meters, the fact that both the units
are controlled by the same employer and the fact that the ~- -
business of heat treatment process carried on in the two
units was identical, it leaves no manner of doubt that the
c two units were really integral and were known separately
only because the business in the two units commenced on
different dates. In my judgment, the finding recorded by
the Tribunal that the two units were separate and indepen-
dent is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained."
D
With these observations, the learned Single Judge set aside the
finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the two units were
independent and separate and held that they were one and the same.
In view of his finding the learned Single Judge held that section 25-G
of the Act was applicable. He accordingly set aside the Award and
E remanaed the case to the Tribunal with the directions already set out
above. ·

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High
I
Court. That appeal was dismissed with the observation that the finding
F of the learned Single Judge that the two units had functional integrality -+
was correct and the remitting of the matter to the Tribunal was in
order. This appeal by special leave is filed against the decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court.

It is not disputed before ITS that after 15.2.1982 when the work in
G the I Unit was completely stopped no work is being carried on in the
premises where the I Unit had been established. It is also not disputed t- .
that the II Unit has been working as usual and the stoppage of the
work in the I Unit had no effect on the work of the II Unit. The finding
recorded by the Tribunal that the management had not closed down
the I Unit by way of retaliation to the alleged trade union activities of
H the workmen of the I Unit has not been shown to be untenable. It is
l.S.T. v. ENG. WORKERS [VENKATARAMIAH, J.} 421

also seen that the findings of the Tribunal that the two units had been
A
established in two different places although at a distance of about 200
yards from each other; that the muster rolls of the two units were
separate; that the two units had separate factory licences and munici-
pal licences; that the balance sheets of the two units were separate;
and that there was no rule or condition of service that the workmen
were transferable from one unit to the other are not set aside by the B
I
learned Single Judge. It is true that in the course of the evidence of one
.. i of the witnesses for the management it had been brought out, that the
name of workman Kishore Ram of the I Unit had been by mistake
entered in the Muster Roll of the II Unit in October, 1980 and it had
been scored out. This was a stray case. There was no evidence in the
case showing that Kishore Ram had actually worked in the II Unit.
Neither Kishore Ram nor anybody else hall been examined to give
c
evidence in support of the said fact. On a consideration of the entire
evidence including the fact that there was no common seniority list of
workmen of the two units and the fact that the name of Kishore Ram
had been entered in the Muster Roll of the II Unit in October, -1980
and that it had been scored out, the Tribunal came to the conclusion D
that the workmen of the two units were not transferable from one unit
to the other.

The first question which arises for consideration in this case is
whether the two units should be treated as having functional integra-
lity. In the Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Company E
Limited v. M/s. Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited, [1974]
1 L.L.J. 499 this Court had occasion to consider a similar question. At
page 507 this Court considered the above question as follows:

"20. After giving due consideration to all the aspects
+ pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we F
are unable to hold that the R. Mill is not an independently
functioning unit and that there is any functional integra-
lity as such between the R. Mill and the S. Mill. The fact
of the unity of ownership, supervision and control and
some other common features, which we have noticed
above, do not justify a contrary conclusion on this aspect G
in the present case. There is considerable force in the
·--+ submission of Mr. Chitaley that the R. Mill is a different
line of business and the closure of the S. Mill has nothing
to do with the functioning of the R. Mill. The matter may
be absolutely different when in an.otherwise going con-
cern or a functioning unit some workmen's services are H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

terminated as being redundant or surplus to require-
A
ments. That most of the conditions of service of the two 1I
mills were substantially identical can be easily explained
by the fact that, being owned by tbe same employer and
the two units being situated in close proximity, it will not
be in the interest of the management and peace and well-
B being of the company to treat the employees different
creating heart burning and discrimination. For the same
reason, there is no particular significance in this case even
in the application of the standing orders of the company
to the employees of the R. Mill which, because of the
non-requisite number of employees employed in the
latter, is not even required under the law to have separate
c standing orders. It is, in our opinion, a clear case of
closure of an independent unit of a company and not a
closure of a part of an establishment."

In the above decision this Court has held that the unity of owner-
0 ship, supervision and control that existed in respect of the two mills
involved in that case and the fact that the conditions of the service of
the workmen of the two mills were substantially indentical were not by
themselves sufficient in the eye of law to hold that there was functional
integrality between the two mills. It held that it was a clear case of
closure of an independent unit and not of a part of an establishment.
E The decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the
fact that the two units were situate in a distance of 200 meters, the fact
that both the units were controlled by the same employer and that the
business of heat treatment processing carried on in the two units was
identical had left no room for doubt thar the two units were really
integral cannot be sustained. The decision in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes
F Trading Employees' Union v. S. G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading
Limited and Another, [1986] 2 S.C.C. 624 is not of much assistance to
the workmen. The management in that case was running its business in
pharmaceuticals at three places. The Pharmaceutical Division was at
Worli, the Laboratory and Dyes Division was at Trombay and the
Marketing and Sales Division was at Churchgate. In 1984 the company
G which was managing the said three divisions of business was sold out.
As the buyers proposed to handle the future sales of the Company
through their own distribution channels, they found tha.t the services +·
of the staff working at the Churchgate office were no longer required.
Therefore, the management closed down the office at Churchgate.
The question was whether there was functional integrality between the
H office at the Churchgate and the factory at Tro~bay. This Court on a
1.S.T. v. ENG. WORKERS [VENKATARAM!AH, J.] 423

consideration of the material before it in that case, held that the tune- A
lions of the Churchgate division and the Trombay factory were neither
separate nor independent but were so integrally connected as to con-
, stitute the Churchgate and the Trombay factory into one establish-
ment, because the Churchgate division used to purchase the raw-
material required by the Trombay factory for producing or processing
the goods, it used to market and sell the goods so manufactured or B
processed by that factory and it also used to disburse the salary and
i other employment benefits and maintain accounts etc. of the work-
men. These were considered to be integral parts of the manufacturing
~ activities of the factory at Trombay, because the factory could never
~ · ~ have funciioned independently without the Churchgate division being
there. It is not the case of the workmen in the present case that the II
Unit could not continue to function after the closure of the I Unit. As
c
1. already mentioned, the II Unit is continuing to function asusual even
now notwithstanding the stoppage of the activities at the I Unit. The
question of application of section 25-G of the Act arises only when the
services of the workmen are retrenched. In Santosh Gupta v. State
Bank of Patiala; [1980] 3 S.C.R. 884 it is laid down that if the termina- D
tion of service of a workman in a given case falls either under section
25-FF or under section 25-FFF of the Act it would not be a termination
falling under section 25-F of the Act. This Court has observed in that
case that after the enactment of section 25-FF and section 25-FFF
retrenchment included every kind of termination of service except
those not expressly included in section 25-F or not expressly provided E
for by other provisions of the Act such as sections 25-FF and 25-FFF.
Hence if the case is one of genuine closure then the question of apply-
ing section 25-G of the Act which is applicable to a case of retrench-
ment would not arise.

+ management
It is not necessary that in order to effect closure of busine£s the F
should close down all the branches of its business. In
Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Workmen & Others, [1973]
3 S.C.R. 303 this Court has held that the word 'undertaking' used in
section 25-FFF seems to have been used in its ordinary sense connoting
thereby any work, enterprise, project or business undertaking. It is not
intended to cover the entire industry or business of he employer. Even G
the closure or stoppage of a part of the business or activities of the
employer would seem in law to be covered by the said provision. In
deciding the above case this Court relied upon its earlier decision in
Workmen of the Indian Leaf 'Tobacco Development Company
Limited, Guntur v. Management of the Indian Leaf Tobacco Develop-
ment Co. Ltd., Guntur, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 282. In that case the Court H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

observed that a genuine closure of depots or branches, even though it
A did not amount to closure of the business could not be interfered with
by an Industrial Tribunal. It further held that the closure was stoppage
of part of the activity or business of the management and such stop-
page is an act of management which is entirely in the discretion of the
management. The Court further observed that no Industrial Tribunal
B could interfere with the discretion exercised in such a matter.

It was, however, argued in this case on behalf of the workmen
that since the Provident Fund accounts of the employees and the
Employees' State Insurance accounts of the two units had common
numbers with the authorities concerned and settlements containing
C similar terms (copies which are not produced before us) had been
entered into in 1974 between the management and the workmen of the
two units, it should be held that the two units had functional integrality
between them. We are of the view that even these factors are not
sufficient to hold that the two units were one and the same notwith-
standing the fact that the nature of the business carried on in them was
D the same. In Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Jts Workmen, [1962] 1 L.L.J. 409
this Court has held that the fact that the balance sheet was prepared
incorporating the trading results of all the branches or that the
employees of the various branches were treated alike for the purpose
of provident fund, gratuity, bonus and for conditions of service in
general, could not lead to the conclusion that all the branches should
E be treated as one unit for purposes of section 25-G of the Act.

On a consideration of the entire material before it, the Tribunal
had reached the conclusion that the closure of the I Unit was bona fide,
that it did not have any functional integrality with the II Unit and that
there was no victimisation of workmen for their trade union activities.
'
F On going througli the Award passed by the Tribunal we feel that it had .+
not committed any error in recording the said findings which called for
interference at the hands of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We are satisfied that this case is one of bona fide
• of ail independent unit of business. The learned Single Judge
closure
and the Division Bench of the High Court were, therefore, in error in
G holding that the termination of service of the workmen in this case
amounted to retrenchment and not closure and the case of the work-
men had to be considered on remand by the Tribunal in the light of
+-1
section 25-G of the Act. They overlooked that it would result in a
wholly unjust situation in which a corresponding number of workmen
in the II Unit would be prejudicially affected even though they had ,.
H nothing to do with the I Unit.
J.S.T. v. ENG. WORKERS [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 425

We, therefore, set aside the judgments of the Division Bench A
~ and of the learned Single Judge and restore the Award passed by the
Tribunal.

Before concluding we should record that the learned counsel for
the management submitted that the management was willing to pay ex
gratia a sum of Rs.10,000 to each of the workmen who had not B
received till now any compensation payable to them under section
i 25-FFF of the Act for closure of the I Unit. He submitted that as on
date 11 workmen had not received the compensation payable to them

-- ~
on closure and that each of them would be paid the compensation
payable to them on closure and Rs.10,000. The names of those 11
workmen are as under: c

1 S/Shri

l. Madanlal Surajbali Jaiswal
2. Sukhdev D
3. Dulsinger Rasharak Jaiswal
4. Motilal Pawar Kurmi
5. Mohanram Katwaro Jaiswal
6. Udaychand Keshavasingh E

- 7. Zagaro Palveer Singh
8. Murlidhar Govind J avane
--er 9. Wandev Prasad
~
/
-+- 10. Radhashyam Rajpati Yadav F
11. Karmraj Lakshman Yadav

We, therefore, direct the management to pay each of the above
workmen compensation payable to them on closure and a sum of
Rs.10,000. The management is given two months' time to pay the
amount due to each of the above eleven workmen. G

The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no
order as to costs.

S.R. Appeal allowed. H