LexISHA STEEL TREATMENT, BOMBAY versus ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS, BOMBAY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B !SHA STEEL TREATMENT, BOMBAY v. ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS, BOMBAY & ' ANR. 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 Unit altogether with effect from 15.2.82 and closure compensation was offered to the entire staff of 32 workmen. A 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 A ward 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 th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.