http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: ISHA STEEL TREATMENT, BOMBAY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS, BOMBAY &ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/02/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1478            1987 SCR  (2) 414  1987 SCC  (2) 203        JT 1987 (1)   548  1987 SCALE  (1)442

ACT:     Industrial  Disputes Act, section 25G--Applicability  of the principle of "last come, first go" thereunder--Appellant firm carrying on business of metal processing with two Units commenced  in  1963 and 1975  respectively--Both  units  had independent  location, separate factory  licences,  separate municipal licences, separate accounts and balance sheet, and no inter transferability--Unit I closed completely on  15.2. 1982 due to indiscipline of the 32 workmen employed  therein gradually  by  first  reducing their shifts  from  three  to two--Closure  compensation offered--Whether the  closure  is bad in law on the ground that there was functional integral- ity  between  the  two units and were  for  all  practicable purposes parts of one establishment--Whether the  provisions of section 25G of the Act applied to the facts of the case.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant carries on the business of metal process- ing i.e. beat treatment of metals. In 1963 it established  a factory  with about 32 workmen-called "No. I Unit".  In  the year  1975 another factory called "No. II unit"  was  estab- lished  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  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  re- spect of each of the two units. There was no rule or  condi- tion  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 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   continued  and on it becoming impossible for the appellant to carry on 415 with  even the two shifts as reduced, the appellant came  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the  unhappy conclusion that it had no alternative left  but to  close  down the No. 1 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 indus- trial dispute reference (IT) No. 218 of 1982. In the  state- ment  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  trans- ferable  from one unit to the other; (ii) that  the  reasons given  by  the  management 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  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 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 Tribunal rejected the case of the workmen  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  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,  reversed the Award of the Tribunal  and  re- manded  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,  and therefore, the learned Single Judge 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 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  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,  supervi- sion 416 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  busi- ness  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 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. M/s Straw  Board  Manufacturing Company Ltd., [1974] 1  LLJ  499 followed.     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  re-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

trenched  within  the meaning of section 25F  and  not  when sections 25FF, and 25FFF are applicable. If the case is  one of  genuine  closure then the question of  applying  section 25-G  of the Act which is applicable to a case of  retrench- ment  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  notwith- standing  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 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  clo- sure was stoppage of part of the activity or business of the management  and such stoppage is an act of management  which is  entirely in the discretion of the management. No  Indus- trial Tribunal could interfere 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  Development Co. Ltd., Guntur [1969] 2 SCR 282  fol- lowed. 417     4.  The  two  factors; namely: (i)  the  provident  fund accounts of the employees and the Employees’ State Insurance accounts  of the two units had common numbers with  the  au- thorities concerned and (ii) settlements containing  similar terms  had been entered into in 1974 between the  management and  the  workmen of the two units are  not  sufficient  for holding  that the two units were one and the  same  notwith- standing the fact that the nature of the business carried on in them was the same. [424B-D]     5. On a consideration of the entire material it is clear that (i) the Tribunal had not committed any error in record- ing 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 independent unit of business--and not a case of termination of  services of workmen requiring consideration on remand, by the  Tribu- nal  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  be  prejudicially affected  even  though they had nothing to do with  the  1st Unit. [424E-H]     Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen,  [1962] 1 LLJ 409, followed.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2912  of 1986.     From  the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.85 of the  Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 262 of 1985. J.P. Cama and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant. V.N. Ganpule for the Respondents; The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,     VENKATARAMIAH,  J.  The  appellant is  M/s.  Isha  Steel Treatment, Bombay--A firm carrying on the business of  metal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

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 418 away  from the I Unit. Both the units had independent  loca- tion,  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 conclu- sion 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 15.12.1982 and closure compensation was offered  to the entire staff of the 32 workmen. The  workmen of  the I Unit raised through their Union, namely,  Associa- tion  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 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, Maharash- tra, Bombay the dispute between the appellant and the  work- men 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 Refer- ence (IT) No. 218 of 1982 before the Tribunal.     In  the statement of claim filed by the workmen  it  was urged that the two units which were being run by the  appel- lant  had functional integrality and were for  all  purposes parts of the establishment and that the workmen were mutual- ly  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  work- men on 419 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 1 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

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 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 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 section 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 seniori- ty  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 dated  September 6, 1983. Aggrieved by the Award  passed  by the Tribunal, the workmen filed a petition under 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  considera- tion,  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  viola- tion  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 420 question  as to the grant of back wages should also be  con- sidered  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  func- tional integrality between the two units and in that connec- tion 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  busi-               ness  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  be-               cause the business in the two units  commenced               on different dates. In my judgment, the  find-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             ing  recorded  by the Tribunal  that  the  two               units were separate and independent is clearly               erroneous and cannot be sustained."     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  remanded 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 Court. That appeal was dismissed with the obser- vation that the finding 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 us that after 15.2. 1982  when the  work  in 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 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 the workmen of the I Unit has not  been shown to be untenable. It is 421 also  seen  that the findings of the Tribunal that  the  two units had been 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 municipal  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 learned Single Judge. It is true  that  in the  course of the evidence of one of the witnesses for  the management it had been brought out, that the name of workman Kishore Ram of the 1 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  had  been examined to give 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 that the workmen of the two units were not trans- ferable 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 integrality. In the Workmen of the  Straw Board  Manufacturing  Company 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 are unable  to               hold that the R. Mill is not an  independently

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             functioning  unit and that there is any  func-               tional integrality 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  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 concern or a  func-               tioning unit some workmen’s services are               422               terminated  as being redundant or  surplus  to               requirements.  That most of the conditions  of               service  of the two mills  were  substantially               identical can be easily explained by the  fact               that, being owned by the same employer and the               two  units being situated in close  proximity,               it will not be in the interest of the  manage-               ment and peace and wellbeing 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  employ-               ees 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 standing orders. It is, in  our               opinion,  a clear case of closure of an  inde-               pendent 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  ownership, supervision and control that existed  in  re- spect  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  func- tional  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. 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  that the two units were really integral cannot be sustained.  The decision in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes 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  work- men. 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  Trom- bay and the Marketing and Sales Division was at  Churchgate. In 1984 the company which was managing the said three  divi- sions  of business was sold out. As the buyers  proposed  to handle  the  future sales of the Company through  their  own distribution  channels, they found that the services of  the staff  working at the Churchgate office were no  longer  re- quired. Therefore, the management closed down the office  at Churchgate.  The question was whether there  was  functional integrality  between  the office at the Churchgate  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

factory at Trombay. This Court on a 423 consideration  of the material before it in that case,  held that the functions of the Churchgate division and the  Trom- bay  factory were neither separate nor independent but  were so integrally connected as to constitute the Churchgate  and the  Trombay  factory into one  establishment,  because  the Churchgate  division used to purchase the raw  material  re- quired  by the Trombay factory for producing  or  processing the goods. it used to market and sell the goods so  manufac- tured  or  processed  by that factory and it  also  used  to disburse the salary and other employment benefits and  main- tain accounts etc. of the workmen. These were considered  to be  integral  parts of the manufacturing activities  of  the factory  at  Trombay, because the factory could  never  have functioned  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 already mentioned,  the II Unit is continuing to function as usual even now notwith- standing  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 termination 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  termina- tion  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  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  ques- tion of applying section 25-G of the Act which is applicable to a case of retrenchment would not arise.     It  is not necessary that in order to effect closure  of business  the management 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  undertak- ing.  It  is not intended to cover the  entire  industry  or business  of he employer. Even 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 Development  Co. Ltd., Guntur, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 282. In  that case the Court 424 observed that a genuine closure of depots or branches,  even though  it 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 stoppage is an act of management  which is entirely in the discretion of the  man- agement.  The  Court  further observed  that  no  Industrial Tribunal  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  em- ployees  and the Employees’ State Insurance accounts of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

two units had common numbers with the authorities  concerned and  settlements containing similar terms (copies which  are not  produced before us) had been entered into in  1974  be- tween  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  notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the  busi- ness  carried on in them was the same. In Indian  Cable  Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1 L.L.J. 409 this Court has held that  the fact that the balance sheet was prepared  incorpo- rating  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  condi- tions  of service in general, could not lead to the  conclu- sion that all the branches should 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  victimi- sation of workmen for their trade union activities. On going through 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 closure of an independent unit of business. The learned Single Judge and the  Division Bench ’of the High Court were, therefore, in error in  hold- ing  that the termination of service of the workmen in  this case  amounted to retrenchment and not closure and the  case of the workmen had to be considered on remand by the  Tribu- nal in the light of 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 nothing  to  do with the I Unit. 425     We,  therefore, set aside the judgments of the  Division Bench 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 received till  now  any  compensation payable to them under section 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  work- men are as under: S/Shri 1. Madanlal Surajbali Jaiswal 2. Sukhdev 3. Dulsinger Rasharak Jaiswal 4. Motilal Pawar Kurmi 5. Mohanram Katwaro Jaiswal 6. Udaychand Keshavasingh 7. Zagaro Palveer Singh 8. Murlidhar Govind Javane 9. Wandev Prasad 10. Radhashyam Rajpati Yadav 11. Karmraj Lakshman Yadav     We, therefore, direct the management to pay each of  the above workmen compensation payable to them on closure and  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

sum of Rs. 10,000. The management is given two months’  time to pay the amount due to each of the above eleven workmen.     The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. S.R.                                            Appeal   al- lowed. 426