LexTHE FINE KNITTING CO., LTD. versus THE INDUSTRIAL COURT, BOMBAY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Bomvari v. Stott of Ultar p,adt•h ll1tlrubar Dayal J. Ft1-1Ili. 196 SUPREJ\IE COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. other viotims. He had it with him E·ithrr as a mat- ter of cour~c or for doing the work hP mil!ht have bren doing that day. We are therrfore of the opinion that ltam Charnn had no common intention with Banwari in his acts towards the \'arious victims of tho incident anrl t.hat he has been wrongly convicted. "\Ve therefore dismiss the appciil of Ranwari and allow the appeal of Ram Cha.ran and acquit the latter of the offonccs he has been convict.id of. AppP.al pa.rtly allowed. THE FINE KNITTING CO., LTD. v. THE IN"DCSTIUAL COURT, BOJ\IBAY AND OTHEHS (P. B. GA.H::S-DRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR :ind K. N. WA:S-CHOO, JJ.) lncfu.<;lrial dispu.tt -lndu,,trial conrern·-8plit-Linq up of a. going concern-Hosiery Gonzpany-lnsfa!lalion n.f spinnin!f 1nflchinf',ry -Rrc<;1j11ition of Com[>finy as ho-~ier11 und.~rf1tkinr1 and t.ipinning undlcrtak:1.q 1v~ sr.para.1p -Vrzlidity -Rrnnba.1J [ntb1stri!tl R•Jation-• Act, 1.94r, (Rom. 1 I of /!147), s. 11. The. appellant Comparv was incorporated in 1908 and its principal activity then ""as to manufac.turc hosiery. In 1924 \\'hen tilt' appellant shifted its factor to Ahmcdtbarl it installr:d spinnin~ n1achinr:ry \\·ich a view to ensure suitable and e\·r.n s111)ply of yarn for its hosiery manufacture. ()riginally, a notifiratior. had hccn iss~t"d on ~fay 30, l~l39, under the Bo1nl>ay Industrial l)i.-p11tc Act, l 93n, ,.,·hereby hosierv concerns , .. ·rrc includccl in t.hc dcfination of 11Cotton Tr.xtil~ Tndusrry•·, h11t suhsrqucntly on July 17, t 9:t.1, another notification vvas issued as a result of which the llo~irry manu· facture \\'as excluded from thP. (~otton 'fcxtile lnd 11stry and it \'•:ls covt"red by a separate notificatinn. For the purposrs of th~ Ro1n\Jav Industrial R~lations Act, 1916, th~ appellant concc-rn ,.,•as rccognisr<l as an undertaking of th~ hosiery industry by the Rcgiitrar nncler s. 11 of that Act. Subse- quently as a re-;11lt of certain proceedings taken liy the Tex- tile Lobour Association of Ahmedabad, the Registni.r decided • J 38.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 197 to recognise the appellant concern as consisting of two under-· takings, the hosiery section and the rest excluding the hosiery section and this decision was confirmed by the Industrial Court. The appellant challenged the order of the Industrial Court on the grounds ( l) that the spinning and the hosiery sections in its establishrr1ent were one concern because (a) there was unity of ownership, management, supervision, con .. trol and employment, (b) there was compleie functional integration, and (c) the two sections were functioning under the same roof, and (2) that, in any case, s. l l of the Act did not authorise the spJitting up of a concern into two undertakings. The evidence showed that though in 1924 the spinning section had begun as a subsidiary to the hosiery section in order to serve as its feeder, later on the spinning section developed to such an extent that it became a spin- ning mill by itself and could no longer be regarded a• a minor section attached to the hosiery works, that only 20% of the yarn manufactured by the· spinning section was con- sumed for hosiery purposes while the rest was sold in the markrt, that the spinning department produced yarn of all counts, some of which could not be used for hosiery work., that when the knitting department was closed in 1948, the spinning d~partment was not. It was also found that the amount paid to the employees in each of the two departments by way of minimum wages and dearness allowance was different. Held, that the decision of t'ie Registrar recognising the hosiery and spinning departments of the appellant con- cern as separate undertakings under s. I I of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, was correct. Held, further, that the question whether the several undertakings carried on by the same company are separate or not depends on whether they are distinct and independent of each-other or are functionally integral or inter-department and that the kegistrar was within his powers under s. 11 of the Act to come to a decision on this question on the basis of the circumstances disclosed on evidence. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, ( 1960) I S.C.R.703,PratapPressv. Their Workmen, (1960) I L.L.J. 497 Pakshiraja Studios
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.