ORDER
1. These two writ petitions are instituted by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, against two Awards of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, declaring the lock out for two distinct periods and consequent denial of wages to workmen of the Coal Chemical Complex (for short ‘the Complex’) as illegal and directing payment of wages for the periods of lockout declared as illegal by the Industrial Tribunal.
2. Common questions arising, these two writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed fo by this common judgment. Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for workmen.
Writ Petition No.3192 of 1994
Lockout was declared in the Complex from 15-2-1988 to 24-2-1988 consequently wages for the workmen were denied. The 2nd respondent-Union pursuant to the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, dated 6-3-1989 got referred the dispute under Section 10(lXdX 2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whether the action of the management in declaring lockout in the Complex and depriving more than 350 employees of their wages is justified and if not to what relief the workmen are entitled? The dispute having been registered as ID No.23 of 1989 was adjudicated and award passed on 4-9-1993. The 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal found the declaration of lock out by the petitioner herein illegal and consequently directed payment of full wages to all the concerned workmen for the period from 15-2-1988 to 24-2-1988. This Award is assailed in this writ petition.
Writ Petition No.3198 of 1994
The petitioner Company declared lockout in the Complex from 29-4-1989 to 10-5-1989. Pursuant to an application by
the 2nd respondent-Union the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by an order dated 29/30-11-1989 referred to the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal a dispute under Section 10(1)(d) (2-A) of the ID Act as to whether the action of the management declaring lock out in the -Complex from 29-4-1989 to 10-5-1989 depriving more than 350 workmen of their wages is justified and if not to what relief the workmen are entitled. The dispute having been registered as ID No.15 of 1990 was adjudicated and Award passed on 4-9-1993 declaring the lockout as illegal and consequently directing payment of full wages to all the concerned workmen for the period of illegal lockout. This is the award assailed in this writ petition.
3. An analysis of facts as established from the record and on which there is no dispute between the parties is as under :
(A) The Coal Chemical Complex is a subsidiary unit of the petitioner Company employing more than 600 workmen. None of the workmen of this Complex proceeded on strike during the two periods of lockout.
(B) Workmen in RK V Incline and Srcerampur coal mines units went on an illegal strike.
(C) There is no adequate storage in the complex. When the mines do not function and there is no production of coal and the complex cannot function. The work in the complex and the production of coal in the mines are inter-related processes. Though the workmen of the complex did not proceed on strike, the workmen of the mines did go on illegal strike.
(D) Lock outs were declared by the petitioner-management for two periods i.e., 15-2-1988 to 24-2-1988 and 29-4-1989 to
10-5-1989. The workmen of the complex neither proceeded on strike in the complex nor were they instrumental in the workmen of the mines proceeding on illegal strike.
(E) There was no total lock out in the complex either. Around 300 employees of the complex were continued and the operations in the complex also continued during the so called lockout periods under guise of essential services. No prior notices were issued to the Complex Union for declaring lockouts apprehending breach of peace or damage to the property and its installations.
4. The Industrial Tribunal found that the illegal strike was only in the mines, that there was no strike whatsoever by the employees of the Complex, that the mines are situated far away from the Complex, that the strike in the mines is not connected with the workmen of the complex and that it is not the duty of the complex workmen to ensure supply of coal to the complex. The Tribunal also found no justification for declaration of lockouts after lapse of time from the date on which the illegal strike ensued in the mines and also that the permissions of the Government of India were not obtained for declaring lockouts in the Complex, in circumstances when no notices of strike were served by the workmen of the Complex. Consequently finding the lockouts for the two periods to be illegal the Awards were passed granting the benefit of full wages.
5. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the mines and the complex constitute one establishment and since continuance of supply of coal is essential to the continuous operations in the complex, the illegal strike admittedly occured in the mines, was adequate justification for declaring lockouts in the complex. To buttress his contention
that the mines and the complex constitute one establishment, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Associated Cement Companies Limited., Chaibasa Cement Works, Jinkpani v. Their Workmen, . On behalf of the petitioner reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, , for contending that no wages need be payable when workmen proceed on an illegal strike. Recourse was also had to the definition “Mines” as contained in Section 2(1) (j)(xi) of the Mines Act, 1952, to contend that the Complex is also included in the definition of Mine since it is a premises adjacent to and belonging to a mine on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on. On a cumulative reliance on the above contentions the petitioner submits that the lock cuts declared in the Complex cannot be termed as illegal and the 1st respondent-Tribunal led itself into an error which is correctable by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The facts on record establish that no lockout was declared in the mines where the illegal strike admittedly took place. It was only declared in the Complex and even there part of the workmen were continued as an essential service. There could not thus be said to have been in existence, as a fact, a lockout in the Complex despite the formal declaration. Admittedly the workmen of the complex neilher proceeded on strike nor were instrumentalities in the illegal strike that occured in the mines.
7. In the Associated Cement Companies case (supra), the Supreme Court recognised several tests such as geographical proximity, unity of commercial
management and control, unity of employment and conditions of service, functional integrality, general unity of purpose, etc., exists to determine whether the parts of units of an establishment constitute one establishment. The Supreme Court also held that it is impossible to lay down any one test as an absolute and invariable test in all cases and that the real purpose being to find out the true relation between the parts, branches, units etc. If in reality they constitute one integrated whole, it can be called as one establishment or else each would be a separate unit and that this determination should be made also having regard to the scheme and object of the statute which gives the right of unemployment compensation and also prescribes a disqualification therefor. The Supreme Court also recognised the difficulty in discovering the real thread of unity in the complexities of modern industrial organisation.
8. In the case on hand the declaration of lockouts in the Complex are established and found by the Tribunal to be an irrational response on the part of the management to an illegal strike that occured in the mines. In view of the further finding that there was no total lockout in fact and a part of the Complex did function under the guise of essential services and that no lockout was declared in the Mines per se where the illegal strike occured, the Tribunal on a holistic analysis found the lockouts illegal, a finding which does not commend itself to this Court as either irrational or based on an erroneous appreciation of law.
9. In this state of facts which are specific to the case on hand, a detailed sui generis analysis of whether the Mines and the Complex constitute one establishment, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not appear warranted.
10. In the result, there are no merits in the writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No costs.