Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents 1 to 13 were employees of the petitioner who purported to retrench them on the ground that he had closed the section of the establishment in which they were employed. The respondents then raised a labour dispute about their retrenchment. Their contention was that the whole establishment of the petitioner was one, that it was not a case of closure, that it was also not a case of lawful retrenchment, that the rules relating to retrenchment had not been followed, that the retrenchment was mala fide and that they were entitled to be reinstated. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour court. Several issues were raised before the labour court and it gave its award on 17 April 1961. It accepted the contention put forward by the employees and directed their reinstatement. It also directed that arrears of emoluments and other amenities payable to the labourers should be paid to them. The Government enforced the award by publishing it on 27 May 1961. By the present petition the petitioner challenges the validly of the award and wants it to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
(2.) The grounds urged in support of the petition are: (1) That the finding that there was one establishment of the petitioner was wrong. Really there were four establishments for the preparation of oil, dal, rice and flour. Each section was independent. The section in which the respondents were working having been closed, their services had to be terminated. The finding to the contrary is wrong. (2) That the labour court is also wrong in its view that the principle of first-come-last-go was not followed. It did not consider the question whether the eleven respondents were really senior to any of the workmen in the other sections if all the sections formed a single establishment of the petitioner. The labour court did not go into the questions and record a finding that there were persons junior to the respondents whose services had not been terminated. (3) That the finding that the rules relating to retrenchment had not been complied with was not correct, and in any case if certain amount payable to the respondents was not paid, that did not affect the validity of their retrenchment. On that basis their reinstatement could not be ordered. At the most the labour court could direct payment of the amounts to them.
(3.) The question whether all the establishments in which oil, dal, rice and flour were manufactured in the petitioner's factory constituted a single establishment or they were independent sections was essentially a question of fact. On that question after considering the materials produced before it, the labour court has recorded the definite finding that all the four sections were not independent sections but really formed part of a single establishment. In coming to that conclusion the labour court has considered the history of the venture as well as the previous conduct of the parties. It has kept in view the tests laid down by the Supreme Court for deciding the matter in Associated Cement Companies, Ltd. and Anr. v. their workmen 1960-I L.L.J. 1. It cannot in the circumstances be said that the finding is not based on evidence and if the finding is based on evidence, it cannot be questioned in writ proceedings. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel that on the materials that were before the labour court it could not come to the conclusion at which it has arrived on this point.;