- (1.) This appeal by special leave at the instance of the workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited, is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal (II) at Lucknow (briefly the Tribunal) dated 30th April, 1968. The facts briefly are as follows :- The Straw Board Manufacturing Company, the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the Company) is a public limited company and owns two units known as the Straw Board Mill and the Regmal Mill (hereinafter described as S. Mill and R. Mill respectively). Straw Board was manufactured in S. Mill and abrasive paper-cloth described as regmal was prepared in R. Mill. These two Mills are situated close to each other with only a railway line intervening. Each has a factory registered separately under the Factories Act, but one balance sheet and one profit and loss account are prepared for the company as a whole consolidating the accounts of both units. S. Mill was started some time in 1932 and R. Mill was established some time in 1940-41. S. Mill had more than 200 workmen whereas R. Mill had about 50 workmen. The Company closed the S. Mill on the ground of non-availability of Bagassee which is the raw material for the manufacture or strawboard and terminated the services of the workmen of this Mill by stages between May, 7 and July 28, 1967. The first batch consisted of 98 workmen whose dispute was the subject-matter of the reference before the Tribunal. On a dispute being raised by the workmen over their termination of services and on failure of conciliation, the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (briefly the U. P. Act) referred the following two issues for adjudication by the Tribunal :- (1) Whether the stoppage of work by the employers and the consequent non-employment by them of the workmen, detailed in the Annexure, in stages as from May 7, 1967, amounts to a lay off/retrenchment/lock-out or whether it should be treated as a legitimate closure (2) To what relief, if any, are the workmen concerned entitled on the basis of the findings on issue No. 1 above Both the parties submitted their written statements and rejoinders. In accordance with the usual procedure followed by the Tribunal, the following fresh issues were framed on the pleadings : (i) Whether the present reference is bad in law by reason of withdrawal of the previous reference (ii) Whether this Tribunal is not competent to go into the question whether the closure was for unavoidable reasons beyond the control of the employers (iii) Whether this Tribunal is not competent to determine the question of compensation in this reference (iv) Whether the employers could validly close only the Straw Board Mill without closing the Regmal Mill (v) Whether the awards in Adj. Cases Nos. 53 of 1965 and 93 of 1965 of Labour Courts, Allahabad and Meerut, respectively and in Adj. Case No. 10 of 1967 of Industrial Tribunal (I), Allahabad or any of them operate as res judicata between the parties. (vi) Whether the Straw Board Mill and Regmal Mill form part of one and the same establishment, and whether this matter has been finally determined by the award of Industrial Tribunal (I) in Case No. 65 of 1963 and does the award operate as res judicata Issue No. (i) was not pressed before the Tribunal. Numerous documents were exhibited by both the parties before the Tribunal, most of these on admission. The workmen examined only one witness while the Company examined three witnesses, including its Director. After hearing arguments in the case on April 24, 1968, the Tribunal recorded the following order :- "24-4-68 ......... Arguments have been heard on all the issues. If it appears to me that the reference can be answered on findings on the issues framed by me, I will proceed to give my award and it will not be necessary to call upon the parties to adduce evidence on the question of quantum of compensation. In case I am of the view that the question of compensation is required to be determined in this case and this Tribunal is competent to determine it, parties shall be called upon to adduce evidence on the question of compensation and the related question of avoidability or unavoidability of reasons of closure of the factory and in that case the reference will be disposed of only after evidence on this point also has been recorded and the parties have been heard further." On April 30, 1968, the Tribunal made the award by recording the following order :- "30-4-68 While writing the award I found it possible to determine the matters of dispute finally on the findings on the issues at which I have arrived. It is not, therefore, necessary to call upon the parties to adduce evidence on the question of compensation and any other related question. I do not consider it necessary to go into the question of compensation in this case. Award made. Let it be sent to the State Government." The Tribunal came to the following conclusions :- (1) S. Mill and R. Mill do not form parts of one and the same establishment. (2) It is a case of complete closure of an independent industrial unit. (3) There is no res judicate on account of the previous awards as claimed by the workmen. (4) The employers could validly close the S. Mill without closing R. Mill.
(2.) The Tribunal, therefore, answered the first issue in the reference in favour of the Company and held that the closure was legitimate and it was not a case of lay-off, retrenchment or lock-out. The Tribunal further held that since it was a legitimate closure, the question of compensation could not be determined by it and the workmen were not entitled to any relief. Hence this appeal by the workmen.
(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits as follows :- (1) The action of the Company is not a closure far less, legitimate or bona fide closure. It was a lock-out. (2) Even if it is accepted that suspension of production in S. Mill was due to shortage of raw materials, the Company should have resorted only to lay-off in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-K of the U. P. Act. (3) In any event, termination of the services of 98 workmen constituted retrenchment and was made in violation of Sections 6-N and 6-P of the U. P. Act and is, therefore, invalid in law. (4) Alternatively, if the action of the Company even amounts to closure, the workmen are entitled to compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act (briefly the Central Act) and the proviso of that sub-section is not attracted.;