It was further stated that the workmen were originally members of Mazdoor Congress which, according to them, companyld number improve their service companyditions.
The appellant resisted the claim made by the workmen.
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.
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.
There was numberrule or companydition regarding the inter transferability of the workmen.
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.
By the time the decision was rendered, there were only 14 workmen, who were interested in the dispute.
It pleaded inter alia that the closure of the I Unit was due to the number co operation and indiscipline on the part of the workmen, that the two units were independent of each other and there was numberfunctional integrality between them.
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.
The indiscipline and the lack of production companytinued 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 companyclu sion that it had numberalternative but to close down the I Unit altogether.
The said two units also had separate stores and maintained separate accounts and balance sheets.
The Tribunal rejected the case of the workmen that the closure was in retaliation to the trade union activities of workmen.
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.
The learned Single Judge, before whom the writ petition came up for companysidera tion, reversed the Award of the Tribunal and remanded the proceedings back to the Tribunal for afresh disposal.
The workmen pleaded that the action of the management was arbitrary and was a companyourable exercise of the managements power of closure.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The management denied that there was any rule or service companydition permitting transfer of workmen from one factory to another.
This appeal by special leave is filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.85 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
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 companytinuity of service with effect from 15.2.
They further pleaded that on the management companying to know about it, it tried to persuade the workers number to join the said Association.
The aforesaid closure of the I Unit set up in 1963 took effect on 15.12.1982 and closure companypensation was offered to the entire staff of the 32 workmen.
Accordingly, it rejected the demand made by the workmen by its Award dated September 6, 1983.
218 of 1982 before the Tribunal.
The said reference was registered as Refer ence IT No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
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 away from the I Unit.
262 of 1985.
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 numbercommon seniori ty list of the workmen of the two units and there was numberrule or practice of transferring workmen from one factory to the other.
On the workmen number 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 15.2.
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 processing, i.e., heat treatment of metals.
They claimed that the principle of last companye, first go while terminating the services of the workmen having number been followed as required by section 25 G of the Act, the termination was illegal.
It was alleged that the impugned action was by way of victimisation for the trade union activities of the said workmen.
2912 of 1986.
P. Cama and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
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.
Both the units had independent loca tion, separate factory licences and separate municipal licences.
