THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED, CHAIBASSA CEMENT WORKS, JHINKPANI versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 11-09-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES 
LIMITED, CHAIBASSA CEMENT WORKS, 
JHINKPANI 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
703 
(S. R. DAs,C.J., S.K.DAs and M.HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Lay-off compensation-Disqualification-
C ement factory-Limestone quarry-Whether both parts of one 
estab/,ishment-Lay-off of workers in cement factory due to strike in 
limet;tone quarry-" In another part of the establishment " meaning 
of_:.Test for determining whether a f>articular unit is part of a bigge1 
establishment-Factories Act, z948 (63 of z948), s. 2(m)-Plantations 
Labour Act, z95r (69 of r95r), s. 2(f)-Mines Act, r952 (35 of z952), 
ss. 2(j), r7-Ind11strial Disputes Act, z947 (z4 of z947), ss. 2(kkk), 
I8(3), 25C, 25E, 33. 
The cement factory in question which is in the State of 
Bihar belonged to the appellant company and a limestone quarry 
owned by the same company was situate about- a mile and a half 
from the factory. Limestone being the principal raw material for 
the manufacture qf cement, the factory depended exclusively for 
the supply of limestone on the said quarry. On behalf of the 
labourers in the limestone quarry certain demands were made on 
the management of the company but as they were rejected they 
went on strike; and on account of the non-supply of limestone 
due to the strike, the management had to close down certain 
sections of the factory and to lay-off the workers not required 
during the period of closure of the sections concerned. Sub-
sequently, after the dispute between the management and the 
workers of the limestone quarry was settled and the strike came 
to an end, a demand was made on behalf of the workers of the 
factory who had been laid-off during the strike, for payment of 
lay-off compensation under s. 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, but the management refused the demand relying on cl. (iii) 
to s. 25E of the Act, which provided that "no compensation shall 
be paid to a workman who had been laid-off ............... if such 
· laying-off is due to strike ............ on the part of workmen in 
another part of the establishment ". The Industrial Tribunal 
took the view that the limestone quarry was not part of the 
establishment of the cement factory and that the workmen in the 
latter were not disentitled to lay-off compensation by reason of 
cl. (i_ii) of s. 25E of the Act. 
The appellant company appealed by 
special leave to the Supreme Court and. contended that the 
decision of the Tribunal was erroneous because the facts of the 
case showed (a) that in respect of both the factory and the lime-
stone quarry there was unity of ownership, unity of management, 
supervision and control, unity of finance and employment, unity 
I959 
September II 
7-04 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
z959 
of labour and conditions of service of workmen, functional integ-
rality, general unity of fUrpose and geographical proximity, and 
Associated Cemenl (b) that the strike was decided on by the same Workers' Union 
companies 
which consisted of the workmen at the factory and the quarry. 
v. 
It was contended for the respondents inter alia (r) that the 
Their Workmen conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal that the factory and the 
limestone quarry are not parts of one establishment is a finding 
of fact which should not be disturbed in an appeal by special 
leave, (2) that the effect of the Expla1mtion to s. 25A of the Act 
is to negative the idea of a factory and a mine forming parts of 
one establishment, and .(3) ~hat since in the matter of reference of 
industrial disputes, the Act gives jurisdiction to two distinct 
authorities, the Central Government in respect of the limestone 
quarry and the State Government in respect of theJactory, the 
two units, the factory and mine, cannot be treated as one 
establishment. 
HelJ: (r) that the question whe.ther the factory and the· 
limestone quarry form one establishment depends upon the true 
scope and effect of the expression "in aqother part of the 
establishment" in cl. (iii) of s. 25E of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947, and involves a consideration of the tests which should 
be applied in determining whether a particular unit is part of a 
bigger establishment, and though for that purpose certain preli-
minary facts must be found, the final conclusion to be drawn 
therefrom is not a mere question of fact ; 
(2) that the true scope and effect of the Explanation to s. 25A 
of the Act is that it explains what categories, fact

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.