- (1.) The appellant is M/s. Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay, a firm carrying on the business of metal processing, 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 away from the I Unit. Both the units had independent location, separate 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-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 indiscipline and the lack of production continued and on it becoming impossible 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 alternative but to close down the I Unit altogether. The aforesaid closure of the I Unit (set up in 1963) took effect on 15-2-1982 and closure compensation was offered to the entire staff of the 32 workmen. The workmen of the I Unit raised through their Union, namely, Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay, an industrial dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Bombay District Office, Bombay, who in exercise of the, powers delegated to him, under cl. (d), sub-s. (1), S. 10 read with S. 12(5), 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 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.
(2.) In the statement of claim filed by the workmen it was urged 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. 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 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 to retaliate against the move of the workmen, removed 22 workmen on 15-2-1982 alleging that the I Unit was making a loss, that the workmen 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 victimisation for the trade union activities of the said workmen. They claimed that the principle of 'last come, first go' while terminating the services of the workmen having not been followed as required by S. 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 management 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 S. 25-G of the Act was inapplicable to the case. After recording the evidence tendered by 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 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 D/- 6-9-1983. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the workmen filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution 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, directed the Tribunal to consider whether the termination of services of any of the 14 workmen, whose claim for reinstatement still subsisted, was done in violation of the principles laid down under S. 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 question as to the grant of back wages should also be considered by it. 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 integrality between the two units and in 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 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 independent is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained."
(3.) 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 S. 25-G of the Act was applicable. He accordingly set aside the award and remanded the case to the Tribunal with the directions already set out above.;