{"id":158358,"date":"1986-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986"},"modified":"2018-02-25T15:23:57","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T09:53:57","slug":"s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986","title":{"rendered":"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 SCR (2) 126, \t 1986 SCC (2) 624<\/div>\n
Author: D Madon<\/div>\n
Bench: Madon, D.P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.G. CHEMICAL AND DYES TRADING EMPLOYEES' UNION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.G. CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING LIMITED AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/04\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nMADON, D.P.\nBENCH:\nMADON, D.P.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 SCR  (2) 126\t  1986 SCC  (2) 624\n 1986 SCALE  (1)1048\n\n\nACT:\n     Industrial DLsputes Act, 1947 : Section 25-0 :\n     \"An  undertaking\tof  an\t industrial  establishment\"-\nInterpretation of.\n     Closure of such an \"undertaking\" - When illegal.\n     Maharashtra Recognition  of Trade Unions and Prevention\nof Unfair  Labour Practices  Act, 1971 : Section 28 and Item\n9, Schedule  IV :  Settlement -\t Termination of\t Services of\nWorkmen in contravention thereof - Whether unlawful.\n     Constitution of  India,  Article  136  -  Resort  to  -\n'Whether  permissible\twhere  equally\t efficacious  remedy\navailable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Sub-s. (1)\t of 8.\t25-o of the Industrial Disputes Act,\n1947 obligates\tan employer,  who intends  to close  down an\nundertaking of an industrial establishment, to which Chapter\nV-B applies,  to submit\t an application for prior permission\nat least  ninety days  before the date on which the intended\nclosure\t is   to  become   effective,  to   the\t appropriate\nGovernment. Sub-s.  (6) of  8. 25-0  provides that  where no\napplication under  sub-s. (1)  is made\twithin the specified\nperiod or  where permission has been refused, the closure of\nthe undertaking\t shall be  illegal from the date of closure,\nand the\t workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under\nany law\t for the  time being in force, as if the undertaking\nhad  not  been\tclosed\tdown.  Section\t25-K  specifies\t the\nindustrial establishments  to which  Chapter V-B  applies as\nthose in  which not  less  than\t one  hundred  workmen\twere\nemployed on  an average\t per working  day for  the preceding\ntwelve months.\n     Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of\nTrade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,\n127\n1971 lists  failure to\timplement an  award,  settlement  or\nagreement ss  one of  the general unfair labour practices on\nthe part of the employers.\n     The respondent-company,  a wholly owned subsidiary, was\noperating in  Bombay in\t three Divisions, st three different\nplaces, the  Pharmaceutical Division  at  Worli\t having\t 110\nemployees, the\tLaboratory  and\t Dyes  Division\t at  Trombay\nhaving 60 employees, and the Marketing and Sales Division at\nits Registered Office at Churchgate having 90 employees. The\nholding company\t had a\tchemicals and  dyes factory  in\t the\nState of Gujarat which was sold out in 1984. Since the buyer\ncompany proposed  to handle  the  sales\t through  their\t own\ndistribution channels  and the services of the staff working\nst the\tRegistered  Office  were  no  longer  required,\t the\nrespondent-company  by\t its  notice  dated  July  16,\t1984\nintimated the  Government of  Maharashtra that in accordance\nwith the  provisions of\t sub-s. (1)  of\t s.  25-FFA  of\t the\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act  (which  applies  to\tundertakings\nemploying fifty\t or more  workmen) it intended to close down\nthe  undertaking\/  establishment\/office\t at  its  Registered\nOffice. In  the said  notice, the  number of  workmen on the\nrolls was stated to be ninety. The company thereafter closed\ndown the  said\tDivision  terminating  the  services  of  84\nemployees, while  retaining the\t remaining six\tto attend to\nthe work upon such closure.\n     The Employees' Union thereupon filed a complaint before\nthe Industrial\tCourt under  s. 28  of the  Maharashtra Act,\nread with Item 9 of Schedule IV thereto, contending that the\nclosure of  the Marketing and Sales Division was contrary to\ns. 25-0\t of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, the\nemployees continued  to be  in service,\t notwithstanding the\nnotice of  closure, and\t were entitled\tto  full  wages\t and\nallowances, in\tterms of  the settlement  dated February  1,\n1979 entered  into with\t the company,  and as these were not\npaid the  company had  committed an  unfair labour  practice\nunder Item  9 of  Schedule IV  to the Maharashtra Act. Their\ncase was  that there  was functional integrality amongst all\nthe three  M visions  of the  respondent-company, and as the\naggregate number  of employees\tin those  Divisions exceeded\none  hundred   the  company   was  bound  tc  apply  to\t the\nappropriate Government\tfor permission under s. 25-0(1). The\nfailure of  the company\t to do\tso had\trendered the closure\nillegal under 8. 25-0(6).\n128\n     The Industrial  Court dismissed  the complaint  holding\n(i) that  8. 25-0  of the  Industrial Disputes\tAct was\t not\napplicable inasmuch as the number of workmen employed at the\nindustrial establishment  at Trombay at no time had been one\nhundred or  more as  required by  s.  25-K,  (ii)  that\t the\nChurchgate Office not being a part of the Trombay factory in\nlegal parlance,\t it was\t not an undertaking of an industrial\nestablishment within  the meaning  of  Chapter\tV-B  of\t the\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, and  (iii) that even assuming that\n8. 25-0 was attracted, a violation of that section would not\nconstitute an  act of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of\nSchedule IV to the Maharashtra Act.\n     On the  question whether  s.  25-0\t of  the  Industrial\nDisputes Act applied to the closure of the Churchgate Office\nand whether  the Trombay factory and the Churchgate Division\nconstituted one establishment.\n     Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1. The closing down of the Churchgate Division of\nthe  respondent-company\t  was  illegal,\t  as   it   was\t  in\ncontravention of  the provisions of s.25-0 of the Industrial\nDisputes Act  1947. The\t company was  guilty of\t the  unfair\nlabour practice\t specified in  Item 9  of Schedule IV to the\nMaharashtra Recognition\t of Trade  Unions and  Prevention of\nUnfair\tLabour\tPractices  Act,\t 1971  for  its\t failure  to\nimplement the  settlement entered  into with  the appellant-\nUnion. [159 F; 160 A; 159 H]\n     The workmen,  whose services were terminated on account\nof such\t illegal closure  continue  in\temployment  and\t are\nentitled to  receive from  the company their full salary and\nall other  benefits under  the\tsettlement  retrospectively.\n[161 C]\n     2.1 Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act applies\nto  the\t  closure  of\tan  undertaking\t  of  an  industrial\nestablishment and  not\tto  the\t closure  of  an  industrial\nestablishment. [149 C]\n     2.2 The Trombay factory of the respondent-company is an\nindustry within the meaning of the term in cl.(j) of 8. 2 of\nthe Industrial\tDisputes Act,  for it carries on the work of\nmanufacturing and processing of dyes. That factory is also a\n129\n\"factory\" as  defined in cl. (m) of s.2 of the Factories Act\n1948, and  is, therefore, an industrial establishment within\nthe meaning  of that expression as defined in 8. 25-L of the\nIndustrial Disputes Act. [144 F-G]\n     2.3 The  Act does not require that an undertaking of an\nindustrial  establishment   should  also  be  an  industrial\nestablishment or  that it  should be  located  in  the\tsame\npremises as  the industrial  establishment.  In\t the  modern\nindustrial world  it is often not possible for all processes\nwhich ultimately  result  in  the  finished  product  to  be\ncarried out at one place. In many cases these functions with\nregard to the use, sale, transport, delivery and disposal of\nthe  article   or  substance  manufactured  are\t distributed\namongst\t different   departments  and  divisions  housed  in\ndifferent buildings situate at different places. [149 D; 146\nG; 147 A; 146 F]\n     2.4 The  term 'undertaking' being not defined, wherever\nit occurs  in the Act, unless a specific meaning is given to\nthat term by the particular provision it is to be understood\nin its\tordinary meaning  and sense  connoting\tthereby\t any\nworks, enterprise,  project  or\t business  undertaking,\t not\nnecessarily covering  the entire industry or business of the\nemployer. So  understood, if  an undertaking in its ordinary\nmeaning and  sense is a part of an industrial establishment,\nso that both taken together constitute one establishment, s.\n25-0 would  apply to the closure of the undertaking provided\nthe condition  laid down  in s.\t 25-K of  not less  than one\nhundred workmen being employed on an average per working day\nfor the\t preceding twelve months is fulfilled. [149 D-F; 150\nA; D-E]\n     Management of  Hindustan Steel  Limited v.\t The Workmen\nand others<\/a>,  [1973] 3  S.C.R. 303  and Workmen\tof the Straw\nBoard Manufacturing  Company Limited   v.  M\/s. Straw  Board\nManufacturing  Company\t Limited<\/a>  ,  [1974]  3\tS.C.R.\t703,\nreferred to.\n     2.5 The  functions of  the Churchgate  Division and the\nTrombay factory\t of the respondent were neither separate nor\nindependent of\teach other  but were so integrally connected\nas to constitute these two into one establishment. There was\ncomplete functional  integrality between  them. The  Trombay\nfactory could  never have  functioned independently  without\nthe\n130\nChurchgate Division being there. A factory cannot produce or\nprocess goods unless raw materials required for that purpose\nare  purchased.\t  Equally,  there   cannot  be\t a   factory\nmanufacturing  or  processing  goods  unless  the  goods  so\nmanufactured or\t processed are\tmarketed and  sold. The\t one\nwithout the  other is  a practical impossibility. Similarly,\nno factory  can run  unless salaries  and  other  employment\nbenefits are paid to the workmen, nor can a factory function\nwithout the  necessary accounting and statistical data being\nprepared. These\t are integral  parts  of  the  manufacturing\nactivities of a factory. [152 E; 154 F; 154 C-D]\n     The Associated  Cement Companies  Limited, Chaibassa Ce\nment Works, Jhinkpani v. Their Workmen,<\/a> [1960] 1 S.C.R. 703;\nWorkmen of  the Straw  Board Manufacturing  Company Ltd.  v.\nM\/s. Straw  Board Manufacturing\t Co. Ltd.,<\/a>  119741 3  S.C.R.\n703; South  India Millowners'  Association  and\t others.  v.\nCoimbatore  District  Textile  Workers'\t Union\tand  others,\n[1962] 1  Lab. L.  J. 223  S.C. and  Western India Match Co.\nLtd. v. Their Workmen,<\/a> [1964] 3 S.C.R. 560, referred to.\n     The total\tnumber of  workmen employed  at the relevant\ntime in\t the Trombay  factory and the Churchgate Division of\nthe respondent-company was one hundred and fifty. Therefore,\nif the\trespondent-company wanted  to close  the  Churchgate\nDivision it  was required  to satisfy the requirements of 8.\n25-0 of\t the Industrial\t Disputes Act. Section 25-FFA had no\napplication in such a situation. [154 F-G]\n     3.1 Merely\t because registration  was  required  to  be\nobtained under\ta particular  statute, it  did not  make the\nbusiness or undertaking or industry so registered a separate\nlegal entity  except where  a registration  of incorporation\nwas obtained  under the\t Companies Act.\t The fact  that\t the\nTrombay factory was registered under the Factories Act while\nthe Churchgate\tDivision  was  registered  as  a  commercial\nestablishment under  the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act\nwas no\tbar to\ttreating  them\tas  one\t establishment.\t The\nFactories Act  and the\tBombay Shops  and Establishments Act\nare regulatory\tstatutes and  the  registration\t under\tboth\nthese Acts  is compulsory  for providing certain benefits to\nthe workmen employed in the factory or the establishment, as\nthe case may be. [155 B; 154 H; 155 A; 155 C]\n131\n     3.2 A  factory as\tdefined in  cl. (m)  of s.2  of\t the\nFactories Act is excluded from the definition of \"commercial\nestablishment\" contained  in cl.  (4) of  s. 2 of the Bombay\nShops and  Establishments Act,\tand is\tnot mentioned in the\nlist  of   establishments  set\tout  in\t the  definition  of\n\"establishment\" given  in cl.  (8) of  s. 2  of the said Act\nbecause various\t matters in  respect of\t which provision  is\nmade under  that Act  are also provided for in the Factories\nAct.  There  is,  however,  nothing  to\t prevent  the  State\nGovernment from\t declaring, under the latter part of cl. (8)\nof s. 2 a factory to be an establishment for the purposes of\nthe Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. [157 B-C]\n     4. It  is an  implied  condition  of  every  agreement,\nincluding a settlement, that the parties thereto will act in\nconformity with\t law. Such a provision is not required to be\nexpressly stated in any contract. If the services of workmen\nare terminated\tin violation of any of the provisions of the\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, such\ttermination is\tunlawful and\nineffective and\t the workmen would ordinarily be entitled to\nreinstatement and payment of full backwages. [159 D]\n     In the  instant case, there was a settlement arrived at\nbetween the  respondent-company\t and  the  Employees'  Union\nunder which  certain wages were to be paid by the Company to\nits workmen,  but the  company closed  down  its  Churchgate\nDivision without complying with the provisions of s.25-0(1),\nwhich amounted\tto an  illegal closure under s. 25-0(6). The\nworkmen whose  services\t were  terminated  were,  therefore,\nentitled to  receive from  the date  of closure their salary\nand other  benefits payable  to them  under the\t settlement.\nThese having  not been\tpaid to them, there was a failure on\nthe part  of the  company to  implement the  settlement\t and\nconsequently the  company was  guilty of  the unfair  labour\npractice  specified   in  Item\t9  of  Schedule\t IV  to\t the\nMaharashtra Act.  The Union was thus justified in filing the\ncomplaint under s. 28 of that Act complaining of such unfair\nlabour practice. [159 E-F; 161 C; 159 H; 160 A]\n     Mharashtra General\t Kamgar Union  v.  Glass  Containers\nPvt. Ltd. & Anr.,<\/a> [1983] 1 Lab. L. J. 326, overruled.\n     5. Article\t 136 of\t the Constitution is not designed to\npermit direct  access to  the Supreme  Court in\t cases where\nother equally  efficacious remedy is available and where the\nquestion\n132\nis not\tof public importance. Though the powers of the Court\nunder that  Article are very wide still the grant of special\nleave to  appeal is  in the  discretion of the Court. In the\ninstant case,  a large number of workmen had been thrown out\nof employment  who could  ill afford  the luxury of fighting\nfrom court  to court,  and  the\t questions  raised  were  of\nconsiderable  importance  both\tto  the\t employers  and\t the\nemployees, which  were valid  reasons for  exercise  of\t the\ndiscretion. [137 B; 138 E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 830 of
\n1986.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  26th July, 1985 of
\nthe Industrial\tCourt, Maharashtra  in Complaint  (ULP)\t No.
\n1273 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Y.S. Chitale and Mrs. S. Ramachandran for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Mahesh Bhatt,  P.H. Parekh\t and Miss  Indu Malhotra for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     MADON, J. This is an Appeal by Special Leave granted by
\nthis Court  against  the  order\t of  the  Industrial  Court,
\nMaharashtra dismissing\ta complaint  filed by  the Appellant
\nUnion under  section 28\t of the\t Maharashtra Recognition  of
\nTrade Unions  and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
\n1971 (Maharashtra Act No.1 of 1972) complaining of an unfair
\nlabour practice on the part of the First Respondent Company,
\nnamely, a failure to implement the Settlement dated February
\n1, 1979,  entered into\tbetween the  Appellant Union and the
\nFirst Respondent  Company.  This  Act  will  hereinafter  be
\nreferred to in short as “the Maharashtra Act”.\n<\/p>\n
     The First\tRespondent Company,  S.G. Chemicals and Dyes
\nTrading Limited\t (hereinafter referred\tto as “the Company”)
\nis a wholly owned subsidiary of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises
\nLimited and  carries on\t the  business\tof  pharmaceuticals,
\npigments and chemicals. The Second Respondent is the General
\nManager (Marketing)  of the  Company. The  Appellant  Union,
\nS.G.\n<\/p>\n
133<\/span><\/p>\n
Chemicals and  Dyes Trading  Employees’\t Union\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to  as “the  Union”) is  a trade  union  registered
\nunder the  Trade Unions\t Act, 1926  (Act  No.  16  of  1926)
\nrepresenting the  employees of\tthe  Company.  In  1984\t the
\nCompany was  operating in  Bombay through  three  Divisions,
\nnamely,\t the   Pharmaceuticals\tDivision   at\tWorli,\t the
\nLaboratory and\tDyes Division  at Trombay  and the Marketing
\nand Sales  Division at\tExpress\t Building,  Churchgate.\t The
\nRegistered Office  of the  Company was\talso situate  in the
\nsame place  as the  Marketing Division,\t namely, in  Express
\nBuilding. Ambalal  Sarabhai Enterprises\t Limited is also the
\nowner of  a chemicals and dyes factory called S.G. Chemicals
\nand Dyes,  situate at Ranoli in Baroda District in the state
\nof Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
     By a  notice dated\t July 16, 1984, given in Form XXIV-B
\nprescribed by  Rule 82-A of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay)
\nRules, 1957,  the Company  signing itself as “SG Chemicals &
\nDyes Trading Limited (Chemicals & Dyes Division)”, intimated
\nto the\tSecretary, Government of Maharashtra, Industries and
\nLabour Department,  Bombay,  that  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions of  sub-section  (1)\t of  section  25FFA  of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, 1947\t(Act No.  14  of  1947),  it
\nintended to close down “the Undertaking\/Establishment\/Office
\nof Chemicals  & Dyes  Division, located at Express Building,
\n14 ‘E’\tRoad, Churchgate,  Bombay-400020, with\teffect\tfrom
\n17th September\t1984”. In  the said  notice  the  number  of
\nworkmen on  the roll  was stated  to be\t ninety, the name of
\n“the Undertaking  (and\tthe  Establishment  proposed  to  be
\nclosed)” was  given as\t“Chemicals & Dyes Division Office of
\nSG Chemicals  & Dyes  Trading Limited”.\t The ‘Industry’\t was
\ndescribed  in  the  said  notice  as  “Marketing  and  Sales
\noperations of  Chemicals and  Dyes”.  In  the  Statement  of
\nReasons annexed\t to the said notice it was stated as follows
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., have agreed to
\n\t  sell its  business and  Undertaking  known  as  SG
\n\t  Chemicals and\t Dyes, situated\t at Ranoli  to\tM\/B.
\n\t  Indian  Dyestuff  Industries\tLtd.,  Bombay,\twith
\n\t  effect from  25-6-1984. Chemicals  & Dyes Division
\n\t  of SG\t Chemicals  and\t Dyes  Trading\tLimited\t was
\n\t  rendering staff and other services to SG Chemicals
\n\t  and Dyes  as also to their Marketing Companies who
\n\t  handled the  sale of SG Chemicals & Dyes products.
\n\t  Indian
\n134<\/span>
\n\t  Dyestuff Industries  Ltd., propose  to handle\t the
\n\t  future  sale\tof  SG\tChemicals  &  Dyes  products
\n\t  through  their   own\tdistribution   channels.  SG
\n\t  Chemicals &  Dyes and the Marketing Companies have
\n\t  informed us  that the staff services offered by us
\n\t  to them  would  no  longer  be  required  by\tthem
\n\t  resulting in\tthere being  no work  for the  staff
\n\t  working at  Express Building office of Chemicals &
\n\t  Dyes Division\t of SG\tChemicals and  Dyes  Trading
\n\t  Limited. The\tManagement has,\t therefore, no other
\n\t  alternative  but   to\t close\t down  their  office
\n\t  operations of Chemicals & Dyes situated at Express
\n\t  Building, 14 ‘E’ Road, Churchgate, Bombay 400020.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Copies of  the said  notice were sent to the Commissioner of
\nLabour, Maharashtra,  the  Deputy  Commissioner\t of  Labour,
\nMaharashtra, and the Union.\n<\/p>\n
     By its  letter dated  July 16,  1984, addressed  to the
\nCompany, the  Union raised  a demand  not to  terminate\t the
\nservices of  the employees pursuant to the said notice dated
\nJuly 16,  1984. The  Company none  the less  closed down the
\nsaid Division  at Churchgate  with effect from September 17,
\n1984. The Company retained only six employees who, according
\nto it,\twere to\t attend to  the work  consequent  upon\tsuch
\nclosure.  The\tCompany\t did  not  pay\tto  the\t eighty-four
\nemployees whose\t services were\tterminated any\tsalary after
\nSeptember 17, 1984. According to its counter affidavit filed
\nin reply  to the  Petition for\tSpecial Leave to Appeal, the
\nCompany has, however, offered to these eighty-four employees
\nretrenchment  compensation   under  section   25FFF  of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act aggregating  to Rs.  22,02,670\t and
\neighty-two out\tof these eighty-four employees have accepted
\nsuch compensation aggregating to Rs. 22,00,162.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Union\t  filed\t on  October  8,  1984,\t before\t the
\nIndustrial Court  Maharashtra, Bombay,\ta  Complaint,  being
\nComplaint (ULP)\t No. 1273  of 1984,  under section 28 of the
\nMaharashtra Act read with Item 9 of Schedule IV thereto. The
\ncontention of  the Union  in the said Complaint was that the
\nclosure of  the Churchgate  Division  was  contrary  to\t the
\nprovisions of  section 25-O  of the  Industrial Disputes Act
\nand, therefore, the employees continued to be in the service
\nof the Company
\n135<\/span>
\nnotwithstanding the said notice of closure and were entitled
\nto  full  wages\t and  all  allowances  as  provided  in\t the
\nSettlement dated  February 1, 1979, entered into between the
\nCompany and  the Union,\t which were  not paid  to them\tand,
\ntherefore,  the\t Company  had  committed  an  unfair  labour
\npractice under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Act.
\nUnder section  26 of  the  Maharashtra\tAct,  unfair  labour
\npractices mean\tany of the practices listed in Schedules II,
\nIII and\t IV to\tthe Maharashtra\t Act. Under  section 27,  no
\nemployer or  trade union  and no  employees are to engage in
\nany unfair  labour practice.  Under section  28,  where\t any
\nperson has  engaged in\tor is  engaging in any unfair labour
\npractice, then\tany trade  union  or  any  employee  or\t any
\nemployer  or   any  Investigating  Officer  appointed  under
\nsection 8  of the Maharashtra Act may, within ninety days of
\nthe occurrence\tof  such  unfair  labour  practice,  file  a
\ncomplaint before  the court  competent\tto  deal  with\tsuch
\ncomplaint. The\tcompetent court\t in the present case was the
\nIndustrial Court.  Schedule IV\tto the Maharashtra Act lists
\nwhat constitute “General Unfair Labour Practices on the part
\nof employers”. Item No 9 of Schedule IV is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “9. Failure  to  implement  award,  settlement  or
\n\t  agreement.”\n<\/p>\n
It was\tthe case  of the  Union that the aggregate number of
\nworkmen employed  in the  three\t Divisions  of\tthe  Company
\nexceeded one hundred and, therefore, for the purposes of the
\nsaid section  25-O, it\twas the\t aggregate strength  of\t the
\nworkmen of  the Company\t employed in all its three Divisions
\nwhich was  to be  taken into account as there was functional
\nintegrality amongst all the three Divisions, and, therefore,
\nunder section  25-O of\tthe  Industrial\t Disputes  Act,\t the
\nCompany was bound to apply to the appropriate Government for
\nprior permission  for such  closure  at\t least\tninety\tdays
\nbefore\tthe  date  on  which  such  closure  was  to  become
\neffective. According  to the Union, as such prior permission
\nwas not\t applied for,  the closure of the Chemicals and Dyes
\nDivision Office of the Company at Churchgate was illegal and
\nsuch  closure,\ttherefore,  amounted  to  an  unfair  labour
\npractice as  it amounted  to a failure to implement the said
\nSettlement dated February 1, 1979. On the examination of the
\nevidence led before it, the Industrial Court held:\n<\/p>\n
136<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “There can  be no doubt that part of the work done
\n\t  at the head office at Churchgate was in connection
\n\t  with or  incidental to  the  Trombay\tfactory\t and
\n\t  there\t does  appear  some  functional\t integrality
\n\t  between the factory and the head office, but in my
\n\t  view, this fact is irrelevant in this complaint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  reason   why  the\t Industrial  Court   considered\t the
\nfunctional integrality\tbetween the  Trombay factory and the
\nChurchgate office  as irrelevant  was that  according to  it
\nbefore section\t25-O could  apply,  the\t number\t of  workmen
\nemployed  in  an  industrial  establishment  as\t defined  by
\nsection 25-L  of the  Industrial Disputes  Act should not be
\nless than one hundred and that admittedly at no time had the
\nnumber of workmen at the Trombay Factory been one hundred or
\nmore. The  Industrial Court further held that the Churchgate
\noffice was  not in  legal parlance  a part  of\tthe  Trombay
\nfactory\t and  the  Company  was\t not  bound  to\t follow\t the
\nprocedure prescribed  by section  25-O for  by no stretch of
\nimagination could  the Churchgate Division be held to be “an
\nundertaking  of\t an  industrial\t establishment”\t within\t the
\nmeaning of  Chapter V-B\t of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
\nIndustrial Court  also held  that the  Head  Office  of\t the
\nCompany located\t at Churchgate\twas governed  by the  Bombay
\nShops and  Establishments Act,\t1948 (Bombay  Act No.  79 of
\n1948) while  the establishment\tat Trombay  was a factory as
\ndefined in  the Factories  Act, 1948  (Act No.\t63 of 1948),
\nand, therefore,\t these\twere  two  separate  legal  entities
\ngoverned by  the provisions  of two independent and separate
\nActs. Further,\taccording to  the Industrial  Court assuming
\nsection 25-O  was attracted,  the violation  of that section
\nwould not constitute an Act of unfair labour practices under
\nItem No.  9 of\tSchedule IV  to\t the  Maharashtra  Act.\t For
\nreaching this  conclusion, the\tIndustrial Court relied upon
\nthe decision  of a  learned Single  Judge of the Bombay High
\nCourt  in   Maharashtra\t General   Kamgar  Union   v.  Glass
\nContainers Pvt. Ltd. and<\/a> another, [1983] 1 Lab. L.J. 326, in
\nwhich the  learned Single Judge had held that non-compliance
\nwith any  statutory provision  such as\tsection 25FFA of the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act cannot\t by regarded as a failure by
\nthe employer to implement an award, settlement or agreement.
\nThe  Industrial\t  Court\t consequently\tdismissed  the\tsaid
\nComplaint by  its order\t dated July  26, 1985. It is against
\nthe said  order of  the Industrial  Court that\tthe  present
\nAppeal by  Special Leave  granted by  this  Court  has\tbeen
\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n
137<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Union\thas directly  come to  this Court  in appeal
\nagainst the said order of the Industrial Court without first
\napproaching the\t High Court  under Article 226 or 227 of the
\nConstitution for the purpose of challenging the said order.
\nThe powers of this Court under Article 136 are very wide but
\nas clause  (1) of  that Article\t itself states, the grant of
\nspecial leave to appeal is in the discretion of the Court.
\nArticle 136  is, therefore,  not designed  to permit  direct
\naccess to  this Court where other equally efficacious remedy
\nis available  and  where  the  question\t is  not  of  public
\nimportance. Today,  when the dockets of this Court are over-
\ncrowded, nay  – almost choked, with the flood, or rather the
\navalanche, of  work pouring  into the  Court, threatening to
\nsweep away  the present\t system of administration of justice
\nitself, the Court should be extremely vigilant in exercising
\nits discretion\tunder Article  136. The reason stated at the
\nBar for not first approaching the High Court to get the same
\nrelief was  that in  view of  the judgment  of\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge of the High Court in Maharashtra General Kamgar
\nUnion v.  Glass Containers  Pvt. Ltd.  and<\/a> another if a writ
\npetition were  filed in\t the High  Court, it would certainly
\nhave been dismissed, forcing the employees through the Union
\nto come\t to this  Court in  appeal against  the order of the
\nHigh Court.  When we  consider\tthat  here  are\t eighty-four
\nworkmen who  have been thrown out of employment and can ill-
\nafford the  luxury of  fighting from court to court and that
\nsome  of   the\tquestions   arising  in\t  the  case  are  of
\nconsiderable  importance  both\tto  the\t employers  and\t the
\nemployees, the\treason given  for directly  coming  to\tthis
\nCourt must  be held  to be valid and this must be considered
\nto be  a fit  case for this Court to exercise its discretion
\nand grant Special Leave to Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Turning now  to the  merits of  this Appeal,  the first
\nquestion which falls to be considered is whether section 25-
\n0 of  the Industrial  Disputes Act applied to the closure of
\nthe Churchgate\tOffice. According to the Union, the case was
\ngoverned by  section 25-O while according to the Company, it
\nwas section  25FFA which  applied to the case. Under section
\n25FFA(1),  an\temployer  who\tintends\t to  close  down  an
\nundertaking is\tto give, at least sixty days before the date
\non which  the intended\tclosure is  to become  effective,  a
\nnotice\tin   the  prescribed   manner  to   the\t appropriate
\nGovernment stating  clearly the\t reasons  for  the  intended
\nclosure of the
\n138<\/span>
\nundertaking.  The   proviso  to\t the  said  sub-section\t (1)
\nprovides that  section 25FFA  shall not\t apply inter alia to
\n“an undertaking\t in which  (i) less  than fifty\t workmen are
\nemployed, or  (ii) less\t than fifty workmen were employed on
\nan average  per working day in the preceding twelve months.”
\nThe other exclusion from the application of section 25FFA is
\nirrelevant for\tthe purpose  of this  Appeal. Thus, where an
\nemployer intends  to close  down an  undertaking in which 50
\nworkmen or  more are  employed, he is to give at least sixty
\ndays’ notice  in the  prescribed manner\t to  the  Government
\nstating\t the   reasons\tfor  the  intended  closure  of\t the
\nundertaking and under section 25FFF(1), where an undertaking
\nis closed  down for  any reason whatsoever every workman who
\nhas been in continuous service for not less than one year in
\nthat undertaking  immediately before  such closure, is to be
\nentitled to  notice and\t compensation in accordance with the
\nprovisions of  section\t25F  as\t if  the  workman  had\tbeen
\nretrenched.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 25-O  features in Chapter V-B of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act.  This Chapter  was inserted  in the Industrial
\nDisputes Act  by the  Industrial Disputes  (Amendment)\tAct,
\n1976 (Act  No. 32  of 1976), with effect from March 5, 1976,
\nand contains sections 25K to 25S. Section 25-O as originally
\nenacted was  substituted by  section 14\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes (Amendment)  Act, 1982\t (Act No. 46 of 1982). Under
\nsection 1(2) of the Amendment Act, 1982, the said Act was to
\ncome into  force on such date as the Central Government may,
\nby  notification  in  the  Official  Gazette,  appoint.\t The
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act as  also the  Amendment Act,  1982,
\nwere further  amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
\nAct, 1984  (Act No.  49\t of  1984).  By\t section  7  of\t the
\nAmendment Act,\t1984, sub-section  (2) of  section 1  of the
\nAmendment Act, 1982, was amended by inserting the words “and
\ndifferent dates may be appointed for different provisions of
\nthis Act”  after the  words “by notification in the Official
\nGazette, appoint”.  Under section 1(2) of the Amendment Act,
\n1984, the  said Act  was to  come into force on such date as
\nthe Central  Government may, by notification in the Official
\nGazette, appoint,  and different  dates may be appointed for
\ndifferent provisions  of the said Act. By Ministry of Labour
\nand Rehabilitation  (Department of  Labour) Notification No.
\nS.O. 605(E), dated August 18, 1984, published in the Gazette
\nof India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii), dated August
\n18, 1984,
\n139<\/span>
\nat page 2, the whole of the Amendment Act, 1984, was brought
\ninto force  with effect from August 18, 1984. By Ministry of
\nLabour\t and\tRehabilitation\t (Department\tof   Labour)
\nNotification  No.   S.O.  606(E),  dated  August  21,  1984,
\npublished in  the Gazette  of India  Extraordinary, Part II,
\nSection 3(ii)  dated August  21, 1984,\tat page\t 2,  several
\nsections of  the Amendment  Act, 1982,\tincluding section 14
\nwhich substituted  section 25-O\t of the\t Industrial Disputes
\nAct, were brought into force on August 21, 1984. Sub-section
\n(1) of section 25-O as substituted provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “25-O. Procedure for closing down an undertaking.-
\n\t  (1) An  employer who\tintends\t to  close  down  an
\n\t  undertaking  of  an  industrial  establishment  to
\n\t  which\t this\tChapter\t applies   shall,   in\t the
\n\t  prescribed manner, apply, for prior. permission at
\n\t  least ninety\tdays before  the date  on which\t the
\n\t  intended closure  is to  become effective,  to the
\n\t  appropriate  Government,   stating   clearly\t the
\n\t  reasons  for\t the   intended\t  closure   of\t the
\n\t  undertaking and  a copy  of such application shall
\n\t  also\t be    served\t simultaneously\t   on\t the
\n\t  representatives of  the workmen  in the prescribed
\n\t  manner :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t nothing in  this sub-section  shall
\n\t  apply\t to   an  undertaking\tset   up   for\t the
\n\t  construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals,
\n\t  dams or for other construction work.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under sub-section  (2) of section 25-O, where an application
\nfor permission to close down an undertaking of an industrial
\nestablishment has  been made,  the appropriate Government is
\nto make\t such enquiry  as it  thinks fit  and after giving a
\nreasonable opportunity\tof being  heard to the employer, the
\nworkmen and  the persons interested in such closure, it may,
\nhaving regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons
\nstated by  the employer, the interests of the general public
\nand all\t other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to
\nbe recorded  in writing,  grant\t or  refuse  to\t grant\tsuch
\npermission and a copy of such order is to be communicated to
\nthe employer  and the  workmen. Under sub-section (3), where
\nthe appropriate Government does not communicate the order
\n140<\/span>
\ngranting or  refusing to  grant permission  to the  employer
\nwithin a  period of  sixty days\t from the date on which such
\napplication was\t made, the  permission applied\tfor is to be
\ndeemed to  have been  granted on  the expiration of the said
\nperiod of sixty days. The other sub-sections of section 25-O
\nare not relevant except sub-section (6) and (8) which are as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(6) Where  no application  for  permission  under
\n\t  sub-section  (1)   is\t made\twithin\tthe   period
\n\t  specified therein,  or where\tthe  permission\t for
\n\t  closure has  been  refused,  the  closure  of\t the
\n\t  undertaking shall be deemed to be illegal from the
\n\t  date of  closure and the workmen shall be entitled
\n\t  to all  the benefits\tunder any  law for  the time
\n\t  being in  force as if the undertaking had not been
\n\t  closed down.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “(8) Where  an  undertaking  is  permitted  to  be
\n\t  closed  down\t under\tsub-section   (2)  or  where
\n\t  permission for  closure is  deemed to\t be  granted
\n\t  under\t sub-section   (3),  every  workman  who  is
\n\t  employed in  that undertaking\t immediately  before
\n\t  the date  of application for permission under this
\n\t  section, shall be entitled to receive compensation
\n\t  which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average
\n\t  pay for every completed year of continuous service
\n\t  or any part thereof in excess of six months”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 25K(1)\tspecifies the  industrial establishments  to
\nwhich Chapter V-B applies. Section 25K(1) is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “25K. Application of Chapter V-B. –
\n\t  (1) The  provisions of this Chapter shall apply to
\n\t  an  industrial   establishment   (not\t  being\t  an
\n\t  establishment of  a seasonal character or in which
\n\t  work is  performed only  Intermittently) in  which
\n\t  not less than one hundred workmen were employed on
\n\t  an average  per  working  day\t for  the  preceding
\n\t  twelve months.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The words  “one hundred”  were\tsubstituted  for  the  words
\n“three\thundred”  in  section  25K  by\tsection\t 12  of\t the
\nAmendment Act,
\n141<\/span>
\n1982, which  section was  also brought\tinto force on August
\n21, 1984.  Section 25L\tdefines the  expression\t “industrial
\nestablishment” for the purposes of Chapter V-B and is in the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “25L. Definitions. –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  For the purposes of this Chapter, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) ‘industrial establishment’ means –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) a\t factory as defined in clause (m) of section
\n\t  2 of the Factories Act. 1948;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) a  mine as  defined in  clause  (j)  of\tsub-
\n\t  section (1)  of section  2 of the Mines Act, 1952;
\n\t  or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii) a  plantation as  defined in  clause (f)  of
\n\t  section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\tsub-
\n\t  clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 2, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) in  relation to  any company in which not less
\n\t  than fifty-one  per  cent  of\t the  paid-up  share
\n\t  capital is held by the Central Government, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) in  relation to\tany corporation\t not being a
\n\t  corporation  referred\t to  in\t sub-clause  (i)  of
\n\t  clause (a)  of section  2 established\t by or under
\n\t  any law made by Parliament,
\n\t  the Central  Government shall\t be the\t appropriate
\n\t  Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The definition\tgiven in  section 25L is for the purposes of
\nChapter V-B only. In addition thereto, a new clause, namely,
\nclause (ka)  was inserted  in section  2 of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act\tto  define   the   expression\t“‘industrial
\nestablishment or  undertaking” by clause (d) of section 2 of
\nthe Amendment Act, 1982. The relevant provisions of the said
\nclause (ka) are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
142<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “(ka) ‘industrial  establishment  or\tundertaking’
\n\t  means an establishment or undertaking in which any
\n\t  industry is carried on :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that where several activities are carried
\n\t  on in an establishment or undertaking and only one
\n\t  or some  of such  activities is or are an industry
\n\t  or industries, then, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  if   any\t unit\tof  such   establishment  or
\n\t  undertaking carrying\ton any\tactivity,  being  an
\n\t  industry, is\tseverable from\tthe  other  unit  or
\n\t  units of  such establishment\tor undertaking, such
\n\t  unit shall  be deemed\t to be a separate industrial
\n\t  establishment or undertaking;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) if  the predominant  activity or\teach of\t the
\n\t  predominant  activities   carried   on   in\tsuch
\n\t  establishment or  undertaking or  any unit thereof
\n\t  is an\t industry and  the other activity or each of
\n\t  the  other   activities   carried   on   in\tsuch
\n\t  establishment or  undertaking or  unit thereof  is
\n\t  not severable\t from and  is, for  the\t purpose  of
\n\t  carrying on,\tor aiding  the carrying\t on of, such
\n\t  predominant activity\tor  activities,\t the  entire
\n\t  establishment or  undertaking or,  as the case may
\n\t  be,  unit   thereof  shall  be  deemed  to  be  an
\n\t  industrial establishment or undertaking”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Clause (b)  of section\t2 of  the Amendment  Act, 1982, also
\ninserted a new clause, namely, clause (cc) defining the term
\n“closure”. The said clause (cc) is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(cc) ‘closure’  means the  permanent closing down
\n\t  of a place of employment or part thereof”.\n<\/p>\n
Clauses (b) and (d) of section 2 of the Amendment Act, 1982,
\nwere brought  into force  on August  21, 1984. Clause (j) of
\nsection 2  of the  Industrial Disputes\tAct defines the term
\n“industry” as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(J)\t‘industry’   means  any\t  business,   trade,
\n\t  undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers
\n143<\/span>
\n\t  and includes\tany  calling,  service,\t employment,
\n\t  handicraft, or  industrial occupation or avocation
\n\t  of workmen”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By clause  (c) of  section 2 of the Amendment Act, 1982, the
\ndefinition of “industry” given in clause (j) of section 2 of
\nthe Industrial\tDisputes Act  was substituted. Clause (c) of
\nsection 2  of the  Amendment Act,  1982, does  not, however,
\nappear to  have been brought into force yet and in any event
\nwas not in force when the Company gave the notice of closure
\nas also\t when it closed down its Churchgate Division. It is,
\ntherefore,  unnecessary\t  to  reproduce\t the  definition  of
\n“industry” as substituted by the Amendment Act, 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  date  when\t the  Company  gave  the  notice  of
\nclosure, namely,  on July 16, 1984, the section in force was
\nsection\t 25-0\tas  originally\tenacted\t by  the  Industrial
\nDisputes (Amendment)  Act, 1976. In the case of the State of
\nMaharashtra the\t original section  25-0 was substituted by a
\nnew  section   by  the\t Industrial  Disputes\t(Maharashtra
\nAmendment) Ordinance,  1981 (Maharashtra Ordinance No. 16 of
\n1981),\twhich  Ordinance  was  repealed\t by  the  Industrial
\nDisputes (Maharashtra  Amendment) Act, 1981 (Maharashtra Act
\nNo.  3\t of  1982).  The  said\tAct  came  into\t force\twith
\nretrospective effect  on October  27, 1981, namely, the date
\nof the\tpromulgation of\t the said  Ordinance. Both  the said
\nOrdinance and  the said\t Act had  received the assent of the
\nPresident. It  was, therefore,\tsection 25-0  as in force in
\nthe State  of Maharashtra  which  was  applicable  when\t the
\nCompany\t gave\tthe  notice  of\t closure.  It  is,  however,
\nunnecessary to set out the provisions of either the original
\nsection 25-0  or of  that section as applicable in the State
\nof Maharashtra\tfor under  both of  them the  provisions for
\ngiving a notice seeking permission of the government for the
\nintended closure  at least  ninety days\t before the  date on
\nwhich the  intended closure  was to become effective and the
\nconsequences of not obtaining such prior permission were the
\nsame as\t in G  section 25-O  as substituted by the Amendment
\nAct, 1982. What is, however, material is that at the date of
\nthe giving  of the  notice of closure, section 25-K required
\nnot less  than three  hundred workmen  to be  employed in an
\nindustrial establishment.  The said  Maharashtra Act of 1982
\nwhich replaced\tthe said  Ordinance had\t inserted a new sub-
\nsection (1A)  in section 25K of the Industrial Disputes Act.
\nThe said sub-section (1A) was as follows :\n<\/p>\n
144<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “(1A) Without\t prejudice to the provisions of sub-
\n\t  section (1),\tthe appropriate Government may, from
\n\t  time to  time, by  notification  in  the  Official
\n\t  Gazette, apply  the provisions of section 25-O and
\n\t  section  25-R\t  in  so   far\tas   it\t relates  to
\n\t  contravention of sub-section (1) or (2) of section
\n\t  25-O, also  to an  industrial\t establishment\t(not
\n\t  being an  establishment of a seasonal character or
\n\t  in which work is performed only intermittently) in
\n\t  which such  number of\t workmen, which\t may be less
\n\t  than three  hundred but not less than one hundred,
\n\t  as may  be specified\tin  the\t notification,\twere
\n\t  employed on  an average  per working\tday for\t the
\n\t  preceding twelve months.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No notification\t under the said sub-section (1A) which would
\napply to  the company has been brought to the notice of this
\nCourt. Even assuming that there was no such notification, by
\nthe Amendment  Act, 1982,  with effect from August 21, 1984,
\nthe requirement\t of not\t less than three hundred workmen was
\nsubstituted by\ta requirement  of not  less than one hundred
\nworkmen. Thus, at the date of closure, which is the material
\ndate for the purposes of this Appeal, section 25K as amended
\nby the\tAmendment Act, 1982, was in force and was applicable
\nto the Company along with section 25-O as substituted by the
\nAmendment Act,\t1982. The parties have also gone to trial on
\nthe footing that the requirement under section 25-K was “not
\nof less than one hundred workmen”.\n<\/p>\n
     The Trombay  factory of the Company carries on the work
\nof manufacturing  and processing  dyes. It  is not  disputed
\nthat the  Trombay factory  is an industry within the meaning
\nof that\t term as  defined in  clause (j) of section 2 of the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act. It  is also  not disputed that the
\nTrombay factory\t is a  factory as  defined by  clause (m) of
\nsection 2  of  the  Factories  Act  and\t is,  therefore,  an
\nindustrial  establishment   within  the\t  meaning  of\tthat
\nexpression as  defined in  section  25L\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act.  What was,  however,  disputed  was  that\t the
\nTrombay Factory\t is an\tindustrial  establishment  to  which
\nChapter V-B  applies because  at no  time did  it employ one
\nhundred workmen.  It was  also disputed\t that the Churchgate
\nDivision of  the Company was an undertaking of an industrial
\nestablishment inasmuch as the Chruchgate
\n145<\/span>
\nDivision was  not a factory within the meaning of clause (m)
\nof the\tFactories Act.\tThe Company’s  contentions  in\tthat
\nbehalf found favour with the Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not possible  to accept  the  above\t conclusions
\nreached by  the Industrial Court. Clause (m) of section 2 of
\nthe Factories  Act, 1948,  defines  the\t term  “factory”  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(m) ‘factory’  means any  premises including\t the
\n\t  precincts thereof –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) whereon  ten or  more workers  are working, or
\n\t  Were working\ton any\tday of\tthe preceding twelve
\n\t  months, and  in any  part of which a manufacturing
\n\t  process is being carried on with the aid of power,
\n\t  or is ordinarily so carried on, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) whereon\ttwenty or  more workers are working,
\n\t  or were working on any day of the preceding twelve
\n\t  months, and  in any  part of which a manufacturing
\n\t  process is  being carried  on without\t the aid  of
\n\t  power, or is ordinarily so carried on, –
\n\t  but  does  not  include  a  mine  subject  to\t the
\n\t  operation of\tthe Mines  Act, 1952 (XXXV of 1952),
\n\t  or a\tmobile unit belonging to the armed forces of
\n\t  the Union,  a railway\t running shed  or  a  hotel,
\n\t  restaurant or eating place;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation. – For computing the number of workers
\n\t  for the purposes of this clause all the workers in
\n\t  different relays  in a  day shall  be\t taken\tinto
\n\t  account.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The first thing to notice about clause (m) of section 2
\nof the\tFactories Act  is that\tit defines  a  “Factory”  as
\nmeaning “any  premises including  the precincts thereof” and
\nit does not define it as meaning “any one premises including
\nthe precincts thereof”. Under this definition, therefore, it
\nis not\trequired that  the industrial  establishment must be
\nsituate in any one premises only. The second thing to notice
\nabout clause (m) is that the premises must be such as in any
\npart thereof a
\n146<\/span>
\nmanufacturing process  is being\t carried on.  The expression
\n“manufacturing process”\t is defined in clause (k) of section
\n2 of the Factories Act. The said clause (k) is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(k) ‘Manufacturing process’ means any process for\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  making,\t altering,  repairing,\tornamenting,
\n\t  finishing,  packing,\toiling,\t washing,  cleaning,
\n\t  breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or
\n\t  adapting any\tarticle or  substance with a view to
\n\t  its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) pumping\toil,  water,  sewage  or  any  other
\n\t  substance, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii)\t generating,  transforming  or\ttransmitting
\n\t  power, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv) composing  types for  printing,\tprinting  by
\n\t  letter press,\t lithography, photogravure  or other
\n\t  similar process or book binding ; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (v)\tconstructing,\treconstructing,\t  repairing,
\n\t  refitting,  finishing\t or  breaking  up  ships  or
\n\t  vessels ; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (vi) preserving  or storing  any article  in\tcold
\n\t  storage”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (Emphasis supplied)
\nThus, the  different processes\tset out in sub-clause (i) of
\nclause (k)  of section\t2 must\tbe with\t a view\t to the use,
\nsale, manufactured.\n<\/p>\n
     In the modern industrial world it is often not possible
\nfor all\t processes which  ultimately result  in the finished
\nproduct to  be carried out at one place and by reason of the
\ncomplexity and\tnumber\tof  such  processes  and  the  acute
\nshortage of  accommodation in  many cities, several of these
\nprocesses are  often  carried  out  in\tdifferent  buildings
\nsituate at
\n147<\/span>
\ndifferent places. Further, in many cases these functions are
\ndistributed amongst different departments and divisions of a
\nfactory and  such departments  and divisions  are housed  in
\ndifferent buildings.  That a  factory can  be housed in more
\nthan one  building is  also clear  from\t section  4  of\t the
\nFactories Act which provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “4. Power  to declare\t different departments to be
\n\t  separate factories  or two or more factories to be
\n\t  a single factory. –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The State  Government may,  on an application made
\n\t  in this behalf by an occupier, direct, by an order
\n\t  in writing, that for all or any of the purposes of
\n\t  this Act  different departments  or branches\tof a
\n\t  factory  of\tthe  occupier\tspecified   in\t the
\n\t  application shall be treated as separate factories
\n\t  or that  two or  more factories  of  the  occupier
\n\t  specified in the application shall be treated as a
\n\t  single factory.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 25L  is not  the only section in the Industrial
\nDisputes   Act\t in   which   the   expression\t “industrial
\nestablishment” is  defined. This  expression is also defined
\nin the\tExplanation to\tsection 25A  in terms identical with
\nclause (a)  of section\t25L. While  the definition  given in
\nsection\t 25L  is  for  the  purposes  of  Chapter  V-B,\t the
\ndefinition given  in the  Explanation to  section 25A is for
\nthe purposes  of sections  25A,\t 25C,  25D  and\t 25E.  Under
\nsection 25C, if a workman in an industrial establishment has
\nbeen laid  off, subject\t to the\t other conditions set out in
\nthat section  being satisfied,\tsuch workman  is entitled to
\ncompensation as\t specified in  that section.  Under  section
\n25E, no compensation is to be paid to a workman who has been
\nlaid off  inter alia  “if such laying-off is due to a strike
\nor slowing  down of production on the part of the workman in
\nanother\t part\tof  the\t  establishment”,  this\t  particular
\nprovision being\t contained in  clause (iii)  of section 25E.
\nThe  meaning   of  the\t expression  “another  part  of\t the
\nestablishment” occurring in clause (iii) of section 25E fell
\nto be  interpreted by  this Court  in The  Associated Cement
\nCompanies Limited, Chaibasa Cement Works, Jhinkpani v. Their
\nWorkmen,<\/a> [1960]\t 1 S.C.R.  703; s.c. [1960] 1 Lab. L.J. 497.
\nThe facts of that case were that the appellant company owned
\na
\n148<\/span>
\nfactory which  was situate  in the  State of  Bihar. It also
\nowned a\t limestone quarry which was situate about a mile and
\na half\tfrom the  factory. Limestone being the principal raw
\nmaterial for the manufacture of cement, the factory depended
\nexclusively for\t the supply of limestone on the said quarry.
\nOn behalf  of the  labourers in the limestone quarry certain
\ndemands were  made on  the management  of the company but as
\nthey were  rejected the\t labourers went\t on strike;  and  on
\naccount of the non-supply of limestone due to the strike the
\nmanagement had to close down certain sections of the factory
\nand to lay-off the workers not required during the period of
\nclosure of  the sections  concerned. Subsequently, after the
\ndispute between\t the  management  and  the  workers  of\t the
\nlimestone quarry  was settled and the strike came to an end,
\na demand  was made  on behalf  of the workers of the factory
\nwho had been laid-off during the strike, for payment of lay-
\noff  compensation  under  section  25-C\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act,  but the management refused the demand relying
\non clause (iii) of section 25E. The Industrial Tribunal took
\nthe view  that the  limestone quarry  was not  part  of\t the
\nestablishment of  the cement factory and that the workmen in
\nthe factory  were not disentitled to lay-off compensation by
\nreason of  clause (iii) of section 25E. The company’s appeal
\nwas allowed  by this  Court. On\t behalf of  the workmen\t the
\nExplanation to\tsection 25A  was relied upon. With reference
\nto the said Explanation, this Court said (at pages 715-16) :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Explanation  only gives\tthe meaning  of\t the
\n\t  expression ‘industrial  establishment’ for certain
\n\t  sections of  the Act;\t it does  not purport to lay
\n\t  down\tany   test  as\t to  what   constitutes\t one
\n\t  ‘establishment’.  Let\t us  take,  for\t example,  a
\n\t  factory which\t has different\tdepartments in which
\n\t  manufacturing processes  are carried\ton with\t the
\n\t  aid of  power. Each  department, if it employs ten
\n\t  or more  workmen, is\ta factory within the meaning
\n\t  of cl.(m) of s.2 of the Factories Act, 1948; so is
\n\t  the entire  factory where  1,000  workmen  may  be
\n\t  employed. The Explanation  merely states  that  an
\n\t  undertaking of  the nature of a factory as defined
\n\t  in cl.(m) of s.2 of the Factories Act, 1948, is an
\n\t  industrial establishment. It has no bearing on the
\n\t  question if in the example taken, the factory as a
\n\t  whole or
\n149<\/span>
\n\t  each department  thereof should  be treated as one
\n\t  establishment. That question must be determined on
\n\t  other considerations, because the Explanation does
\n\t  not deal  with the  question of one establishment.
\n\t  In our  view, the  true scope\t and effect  of\t the
\n\t  Explanation is  that it  explains what categories,
\n\t  factory,  mine  or  plantation,  come\t within\t the
\n\t  meaning    of\t    the\t   expression\t ‘industrial
\n\t  establishment’; it does not deal with the question
\n\t  as to\t what constitutes one establishment and lays
\n\t  down no tests for determining that question.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 25-0  applies to the closure of “an undertaking
\nof an  industrial establishment”  and not  to the closure of
\n“an industrial establishment”. Section 25L, however, defines
\nonly the  expression “industrial  establishment” and not the
\nexpression “an\tundertaking of an industrial establishment”.
\nIt also\t does not define the term “undertaking”. Section 25L
\ndoes not  require that\t“an  undertaking  of  an  industrial
\nestablishment” should  also be an “industrial establishment”
\nor that\t it should  be located\tin the\tsame premises as the
\n“industrial establishment”. The term “undertaking” though it
\noccurs in  several sections  of the Industrial Disputes Act,
\nas for\tinstance, sections  25FF, 25FFA\t and 25FFF,  is\t not
\ndefined anywhere  in the Act. Even the new clause (ka) which
\nwas inserted  in section  2  by\t the  Amendment\t Act,  1982,
\ndefines\t the   expression   “industrial\t  establishment\t  or
\nundertaking” and  not the term “undertaking” simpliciter. It
\nwould appear  from the opening words of clause (ka), namely,
\n“‘industrial  establishment   or   undertaking’\t  means\t  an
\nestablishment  or  undertaking\tin  which  any\tindustry  is
\ncarried on”,  that the term “undertaking” in that definition
\napplies to  an industrial  undertaking. It would thus appear
\nthat the  words “undertaking”  wherever\t it  occurs  in\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, unless a specific meaning is given
\nto  that  term\tby  that  particular  provision,  is  to  be
\nunderstood in  its ordinary  meaning  and  sense.  The\tterm
\n“undertaking”  occurring   in\tsection\t  25FFF\t  fell\t for
\ninterpretation by  this Court  in  Management  of  Hindustan
\nSteel Limited v. The Workmen & Ors.,<\/a> [1973] 3 S.C.R. 303. In
\nthat case, this Court held (at page 310) :\n<\/p>\n
150<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “The word undertaking as used in s. 25FFF seems to
\n\t  us  to  have\tbeen  used  in\tits  ordinary  sense
\n\t  connoting thereby any work, enterprise, project or
\n\t  business undertaking.\t It is not intended to cover
\n\t  the entire industry or business of the employer as
\n\t  was suggested\t on behalf  of the  respondent. Even
\n\t  closure or  stoppage of  a part of the business or
\n\t  activities of the employer would seem in law to be
\n\t  covered by  this  sub-section.  The  question\t has
\n\t  indeed to be decided on the facts of each case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The above  passage was cited with approval and reiterated in
\nWorkmen of  the Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited v.
\nM\/s. Straw  Board Manufacturing\t Company Limited,<\/a>  [1974]  3
\nS.C.R. 703, 719.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  thus clear\tthat the  word “undertaking”  in the
\nexpressions “an\t undertaking of an industrial establishment”
\nin section 25-0 means an undertaking in its ordinary meaning
\nand sense  as defined by this Court in the case of Hindustan
\nSteel Limited. If an undertaking in its ordinary meaning and
\nsense is  a part of an industrial establishment so that both
\ntaken together\tconstitute one\testablishment, section\t25-O
\nwould apply  to the  closure of the undertaking provided the
\ncondition laid\tdown in\t section 25K is fulfilled. The tests
\nto determine  what constitutes\tone establishment  were laid
\ndown by\t this Court in Associated Cement Company’s Case. The
\nrelevant passage is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “What then  is ‘one establishment’ in the ordinary
\n\t  industrial or\t business  sense?  The\tquestion  of
\n\t  unity of  oneness presents  difficulties when\t the
\n\t  industrial establishment consists of parts, units,
\n\t  I departments,  branches etc.\t If it\tis  strictly
\n\t  unitary in  the sense\t of having  one location and
\n\t  one unit  only,  there  is  little  difficulty  in
\n\t  saying  that\t it  is\t one  establishment.  Where,
\n\t  however, the\tindustrial  undertaking\t has  parts,
\n\t  branches, departments,  units etc.  with different
\n\t  locations, near  or distant,\tthe question  arises
\n\t  what tests  should be applied for determining what
\n\t  constitutes  ‘one  establishment’.  Several  tests
\n\t  were referred to in the course of arguments before
\n\t  us, such as
\n151<\/span>
\n\t  geographical\tproximity,   unity   of\t  ownership,
\n\t  management and  control, unity  of employment\t and
\n\t  conditions  of  service,  functional\tintegrality,
\n\t  general unity\t of  purpose  etc.  .  .  .  It\t is,
\n\t  perhaps, impossible to lay down any one test as an
\n\t  absolute invariable  test for\t all cases. The real
\n\t  purpose of  these tests  is to  find out  the true
\n\t  relation between  the parts,\tbranches, units etc.
\n\t  If in\t their true  relation  they  constitute\t one
\n\t  integrated whole, we say that the establishment is
\n\t  one; if on the contrary they do not constitute one
\n\t  integrated whole,  each unit\tis then\t a  separate
\n\t  unit. How  the relation  between the units will be
\n\t  judged must  depend on  the facts  proved,  having
\n\t  regard to  the scheme\t and object  of the  statute
\n\t  which gives the right of unemployment compensation
\n\t  and  also  prescribes\t disqualification  therefor.
\n\t  Thus,\t in   one  case\t  the  unity  of  ownership,
\n\t  management and  control may be the important test;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  in another  case functional integrality or general
\n\t  unity may  be the  important test;  and  in  still
\n\t  another case,\t the important test may be the unity
\n\t  of employment.  Indeed, in a large number of cases
\n\t  several tests\t may fall  for consideration  at the
\n\t  same time.” E
\nThese tests  have been accepted and applied by this Court in
\ndifferent cases,  for instance,\t in South India Millowners”
\nAssociation and Ors. v. Coimbatore District Textile Workers’
\nUnion &\t Ors.,<\/a> [1962]  1 Lab.  L.J. 223\t S.C., Western India
\nMatch Co.  Ltd. v.  Their Workmen,<\/a> [1964] 3 S.C.R. 560; s.c.
\n[1963] 2  Lab. L.J.  459 and  Workmen  of  the\tStraw  Board
\nManufacturing  Company\t Limited   v.\tM\/s.   Straw   Board
\nManufacturing  Company\t Limited.  In  Western\tIndia  Match
\nCompany’s<\/a> case\tthe Court  held on  the facts that there was
\nfunctional integrality\tand interdependence  or community of
\nfinancial control and management of the sales office and the
\nfactory in  the appellant  company and\tthat the two must be
\nconsidered part\t of one\t and the  same\tunit  of  industrial
\nproduction. In\tthe Straw Board Manufacturing Company’s case
\nthe Court held (at page 713) :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The most important aspect in this particular case
\n\t  relating to  closure, in  our opinion,  is whether
\n\t  one  unit   has  such\t componental  relation\tthat
\n\t  closing of
\n152<\/span>
\n\t  One must  lead to  the closing of the other or the
\n\t  one\tcannot\t  reasonably   exist   without\t the
\n\t  other.Functional integrality\twill assume an added
\n\t  significance in  a case  of closure of a branch or
\n\t  unit.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     What  now\tfalls  to  be  ascertained  is\twhether\t the
\nundertaking of the Company, namely, the Churchgate Division,
\nformed part  of the industrial establishment of the Company,
\nnamely, the Trombay factory, so as to constitute the Trombay
\nfactory and  the Churchgate  Division one  establishment. If
\nthey did  and the  total strength of the workmen employed in
\nthe Churchgate\tDivision and  at the Trombay factory was one
\nhundred or  more, then\tsection 25-O would apply. If they do
\nnot, then  the section\twhich would  apply would  be section
\n25FFA. This is a question of fact to be ascertained from the
\nevidence led  before the  Industrial Court.  At the relevant
\ntime the  number of employees in the Worli Division was 110,
\nin the\tChurchgate  Division  was  90  and  in\tthe  Trombay
\nDivision was  60, aggregating  in  all\tto  260.  The  Worli
\nDivision does  not fall\t for consideration  in\tthis  Appeal
\nbecause the  evidence in the case is confined to the Trombay
\nfactory and  the Churchgate  Division and  does not refer to
\nthe Worli  Division except  in passing. The evidence clearly
\nestablishes that  the functions\t of the\t Churchgate Division
\nand  the   Trombay  factory   were  neither   separate\t nor
\nindependent  but   were\t so   integrally  connected   as  to
\nconstitute the\tChurchgate Division  and the Trombay factory
\ninto one  establishment. Until\t1965  the  Company  had\t its
\nvarious departments,  such as pharmaceutical sales, dyes and
\nchemicals sales,  laboratory (which  is now  in the  Trombay
\nfactory), accounts,  purchases, personnel and administration
\nand  other   departments   housed   in\t Express   Building,
\nChurchgate, while its factory was situate at Tardeo. In 1965
\nthe factory  as also  the laboratory were shifted to Trombay
\nand in 1971 the Pharmaceutical Sales Division was shifted to
\nWorli.\tEven  after  the  Company  began  carrying  out\t its
\noperation  at  three  separate\tplaces,\t namely.  at  Worli,
\nChurchgate and\tTrombay, all  the purchases of raw materials
\nrequired for the Trombay factory were made by the Churchgate
\nDivision. The  Churchgate Division  also  looked  after\t the
\nmarketing and  sales of the goods manufactured and processed
\nat the Trombay factory. The statistical work of the Company,
\nnamely, productwise  sales  statistics,\t industrywise  sales
\nstatistics, partywise sales
\n153<\/span>
\nstatistics,  monthly  sales  performance  statistics,  sales
\nforecast statistics,  collection forcast  statistics,  sales
\noutstanding statistics\tand other statistical work, was also
\ndone in\t the Churchgate\t Division. The orders for processing
\nof dyes and instructions in respect thereof were issued from
\nthe Churchgate\tDivision to the Trombay factory. The work of
\nmaking payment of salaries, overtime, conveyance allowances,
\nmedical\t expenses,   leave   travel   allowance,   statutory
\ndeductions  such   as  for   provident\t fund,\t income-tax,
\nprofessional tax, etc., in respect of the workmen working at
\nthe Trombay factory was also done in the Churchgate Division
\nand an\temployee from  the Churchgate Division used to go to
\nthe Trombay  factory on\t the last  day\tof  each  month\t for
\nactually making\t payment of  the salaries  etc. The  work of
\npurchasing statutory  items, printing  forms, etc.,  for the
\nTrombay factory\t and the Worli Division was also done by the
\nChurchgate Division  and  the  maintenance  of\tthe  Express
\nBuilding at  Churchgate and  of the  factory at\t Trombay was
\ndone by personnel in the Churchgate Division. The Churchgate
\nDivision also  purchased uniforms,  rain coats and umbrellas
\nfor the\t workmen working  in the Trombay factory in addition
\nto the workmen working in the Express Building. The services
\nof  the\t  workmen  working   in\t the  Trombay  factory\twere
\ntransferable and  workmen were\tin fact transferred from the
\nTrombay factory to the Churchgate Division.\n<\/p>\n
     While the\tUnion examined\teight witnesses, P.S. Raman,
\nExecutive (Administration)  of\tthe  Company  was  the\tonly
\nwitness examined  by the  Company. Raman has admitted in his
\nevidence that the marketing and sales operations of the dyes
\nprocessed at the Trombay factory were done in the Churchgate
\nDivision, that\tpersonnel from\tthe Churchgate Division were
\nsent to the Trombay factory in connection with the technical
\nmatters relating to the factory, that the procurement of raw
\nmaterials and the work of technical advice on processing and
\nstandardization of  goods manufactured\tand processed at the
\nTrombay factory\t as also the final marketing of the finished
\nproducts of  the  Trombay  factory  were  all  done  by\t the
\nChurchgate Division. He has further admitted that the supply
\nof stationery  to the  Trombay factory was largely done from
\nthe Churchgate Division and that the ultimate decisions with
\nregard to  the workload,  assignment of job, etc. were taken
\nby the\ttop management\tof the Company at the Head Office of
\nthe Company  in Express\t Building. Raman  has also  admitted
\nthat
\n154<\/span>
\nsamples relating  to the  products to  be processed  at\t the
\nTrombay factory were received at the Churchgate Division and
\nsalary sheets  in respect of workmen employed in the Trombay
\nfactory were  prepared in  the Churchgate  Division and that
\nall preparations  in respect  of disbursement  of wages\t and
\nsalaries of  the employees  working in\tthe Trombay  factory
\nwere also  done in the Churchgate Division. Raman’s evidence
\nfurther shows  that there were no accountants at the Trombay
\nfactory and  all the  work relating  to the  accounts of the
\nTrombay factory\t was done  at  the  Head  Office  and  Raman
\nhimself had  to go  to Trombay\tsometimes in connection with
\nthe work  of the factory. It is thus clear from the evidence
\non the\trecord that  the Trombay  factory could\t never\thave
\nfunctioned independently  without  the\tChurchgate  Division
\nbeing there.  A factory\t cannot\t produce  or  process  goods
\nunless\traw   materials\t required   for\t that\tpurpose\t are
\npurchased. Equally,  there cannot be a factory manufacturing
\nor processing  goods unless  the goods\tso  manufactured  or
\nprocessed are  marketed and  sold. The one without the other
\nis a  practical impossibility. Similarly, no factory can run
\nunless salaries\t and other  employment benefits\t are paid to
\nthe workmen nor can a factory function without the necessary
\naccounting and\tstatistical data  being prepared.  These are
\nintegral parts of the manufacturing activities of a factory.
\nAll these  factors existed in the present case and there can
\nbe no  doubt that  the Trombay\tfactory and  the  Churchgate
\nDivision  constituted\tone  establishment.  me\t fact  that,
\naccording to  the Company,  a major  part of the work of the
\nChurchgate Division  was that  of marketing  and selling the
\nproducts of the Ranoli factory belonging to Ambalal Sarabhai
\nEnterprises Limited is irrelevant. m e Trombay factory could
\nnot have  conveniently existed\tand functioned\twithout\t the
\nChurchgate  Division  and  the\tevidence  shows\t a  complete
\nfunctional integrality\tbetween the  Trombay factory and the
\nChurchgate Division  of the  Company. The  total  number  of
\nworkmen employed at the relevant time in the Trombay factory
\nand the\t Churchgate Division  was one hundred and fifty and,
\ntherefore,  if\t the  Company\twanted\tto  close  down\t its
\nChurchgate Division,  the section of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct which applied was section 25-O and not section 25FFA.\n<\/p>\n
     The next contention raised on behalf of the Company was
\nthat the Trombay factory was registered under the Factories
\n155<\/span>
\nAct while  the\tChurchgate  Division  was  registered  as  a
\ncommercial  establishment   under  the\t Bombay\t Shops\t and
\nEstablishments Act and, therefore, they could not be treated
\nas one.\t According to  the Industrial  Court, this  fact  of
\nregistration  under   two  different  Acts  constituted\t the
\nTrombay\t factory   and\tthe  Churchgate\t Division  into\t two
\nseparate legal\tentities. It  is as difficult to follow this
\ncontention of  the  Company  as\t it  is\t to  understand\t the
\nconclusion reached  by the  Industrial Court. Merely because
\nregistration is\t required to  be obtained under a particular
\nstatute, it  does not  make the\t business or  undertaking or
\nindustry so  registered a separate legal entity except where
\na  registration\t of  incorporation  is\tobtained  under\t the
\nCompanies Act.\tm e  Factories Act  and the Bombay Shops and
\nEstablishments\tAct   are  regulatory\tstatutes   and\t the
\nregistration  under   both  these  Acts\t is  compulsory\t for
\nproviding certain  benefits to\tthe workmen  employed in the
\nfactory or  the establishment, as the case may be. What was,
\nhowever, relied\t upon  was  the\t definition  of\t “commercial
\nestablishment” given  in clause\t (4) of\t section  2  of\t the
\nBombay Shops  and Establishments  Act. me said clause (4) is
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(4)\t ‘Commercial\testablishment’\t means\t  an
\n\t  establishment\t which\tcarries\t on,  any  business,
\n\t  trade or  profession or  any\twork  in  connection
\n\t  with, or incidental or ancillary to, any business,
\n\t  trade or  profession and includes establishment of
\n\t  any  legal   practitioner,  medical  practitioner,
\n\t  architect, engineer, accountant, tax consultant or
\n\t  any other technical or professional consultant and
\n\t  also\tincludes  a  society  registered  under\t the
\n\t  Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a charitable
\n\t  or other  trust, whether  registered or not, which
\n\t  carries on  whether for  purposes of\tgain or not,
\n\t  any business,\t trade\tor  profession\tor  work  in
\n\t  connection with or incidental or ancillary thereto
\n\t  but does  not include a factory, shop, residential
\n\t  hotel, restaurant,  eating house, theatre or other
\n\t  place of public amusement or entertainment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (Emphasis supplied.)
\n156<\/span>
\nClause (9) of section 2 of the said Act defines “factory” as
\nmeaning “any  premises which is a factory within the meaning
\nof clause  (m) of  section 2  of the Factories Act, 1948, or
\nwhich is deemed to be a factory under section 85 of the said
\nAct”. The definition of “Commercial establishment” in clause
\n(4)  of\t  section  2   clearly\tshows\tthat  a\t  commercial
\nestablishment is  one of  the categories of “establishment”.
\n“Establishment” is  separately\tdefined\t in  clause  (8)  of
\nsection 2 as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(8)\t‘Establishment’\t means\ta  shop,  commercial
\n\t  establishment,  residential\thotel,\t restaurant,
\n\t  eating house,\t theatre, or  other place  of public
\n\t  amusement  or\t entertainment\tto  which  this\t Act
\n\t  applies and  includes such  other establishment as
\n\t  the State  Government may,  by notification in the
\n\t  Official Gazette,  declare to\t be an establishment
\n\t  for the purposes of this Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It will be noticed that the word “factory” does not occur in
\nthe  definition\t  of  “establishment”  while  a\t factory  is
\nexpressly  excluded   from  the\t definition  of\t “commercial
\nestablishment”. The  reason is\tobvious. mere  are  separate
\nChapters in  the Bombay\t Shops and  Establishment Act  which
\nprovide for  various matters  such as  opening\tand  closing
\nhours, daily  and weekly  hours of  work, interval for rest,
\nholidays in a week, etc., in respect of different categories
\nof   establishment,    such   as    shops   and\t  commercial
\nestablishments,\t residential   hotels  and  restaurants\t and
\neating\thouses\tand  theatres  or  other  places  of  public
\namusement or  entertainment. Under  section 7(1) of the said
\nAct, the  employer of  every establishment is to send to the
\nInspector of  the local\t area concerned\t a  statement  in  a
\nprescribed form together with the prescribed fees containing
\nvarious\t particulars   including  “the\t category   of\t the
\nestablishment,\ti.e.,  whether\tit  is\ta  shop,  commercial
\nestablishment, residential  hotel, restaurant, eating house,
\ntheatre\t  or\tother\tplace\tof   public   amusement\t  or
\nentertainment”. On  receipt of\tsuch statement\tand the fees
\nthe Inspector,\tif satisfied  about the\t correctness of\t the
\nstatement, is  to register the establishment in the Register
\nof  Establishments.\tThe   form  of\t the   Register\t  of
\nEstablishments is  given in Form appended to the Maharashtra
\nShops and  Establishments Rules, 1961, made under section 67
\nof the\tBombay shops and Establishments Act. m is Form shows
\nthat the Register is
\n157<\/span>
\ndivided into  five parts.  Part I consists of shops; Part II
\nconsists of  commercial establishments; Part III consists of
\nresidential hotels;  Part IV  consists\tof  restaurants\t and
\neating houses;\tand Part  V consists  of theatres  and other
\nplaces of Public amusement or entertainment.\n<\/p>\n
     A factory\tas defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the
\nFactories Act is excluded from the definition of “commercial
\nestablishment” contained  in clause  (4) of section 2 of the
\nBombay Shops and Establishments Act, and is not mentioned in
\nthe list  of establishments  set out  in the  definition  of
\n“establishment” given in clause (8) of section 2 of the said
\nAct because various matters in respect of which provision is
\nmade under  the said  Act  are\talso  provided\tfor  in\t the
\nFactories Act.\tThere is,  however, nothing  to prevent\t the
\nState Government  from declaring,  under the  latter part of
\nclause (8)  of section 2, a “factory” to be an establishment
\nfor the purposes of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Under section  4 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments
\nAct, certain  provisions of  that Act set out in Schedule II
\nto the\tsaid Act  are not  to apply  to the  establishments,
\nemployees and  other persons mentioned in the said Schedule.
\nFurther, under\tsection 4,  the\t State\tGovernment  has\t the
\npower, by notification published in the Official Gazette, to
\nadd to,\t omit or  alter any  of the  entries in Schedule II.
\nSeveral of  the entries\t set out  in Schedule II show that a
\nnumber of  industrial establishments,  using that expression
\nin  its\t  ordinary  sense,   are   covered   by\t  the\tterm
\n“establishment” such  as, ice  and  ice-fruit  manufacturing
\nestablishments\t(Entry\t24);  any  establishment  wherein  a
\nmanufacturing process  defined in clause (k) of section 2 of
\nthe  Factories\t Act  is   carried  on\t (Entry\t  34);\t dal
\nmanufacturing  establishments\t(entry\t46);  establishments
\ncommonly known\tas general  engineering\t works\twherein\t the
\nmanufacturing process  is carried  on with  the aid of power
\n(Entry 54); such establishments manufacturing bricks as open
\nearlier than  5.30 a.m.\t (Entry 96); establishment of Jayems
\nChemicals, Nashik Road, Deolali, Nashik (Entry 106); Biotech
\nLaboratories,  Poona   (Entry  160);  employees\t in  Messrs.
\nManganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagpur (Entry 183); employees in
\ntanneries and leather manufactory (Entry 187); ILAC Limited,
\nCalico Chemicals Plastics and Fibres Division Premises, Anik
\nChembur, Bombay – 400074 (Entry 208); flour mills in Greater
\n158<\/span>
\nBombay\t(Entry\t220);  and  Trombay  Thermal  Power  Station
\nConstruction Project,  Unit 5,\tof the\tTata  Power  Company
\nLtd., Bombay (Entry 243). It may be mentioned that while the
\nlaboratory  of\tthe  Company  was  located  in\tthe  Express
\nBuilding before\t it was\t shifted to  the Trombay factory, it
\nwas registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act
\nand not under the Factories Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The  error\t  made\tby   the  Industrial  Court  was  in
\nconsidering   that   an\t  undertaking\tof   an\t  industrial
\nestablishment should  itself be an industrial establishment,
\nthat is,  a factory as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of
\nthe Factories  Act. This  supposition is not correct for, as
\nalready pointed\t out, there  is no  requirement contained in
\nthe Industrial\tDisputes  Act  that  an\t undertaking  of  an
\nindustrial  establishment   should  also  be  an  industrial
\nestablishment.\n<\/p>\n
     The last  contention on  the merits which was raised on
\nbehalf of the Company was that though the Company might have
\nacted in  contravention of the provisions of section 25-0 of
\nthe Industrial Disputes Act, it nonetheless would not amount
\nto a  failure to  implement the Settlement dated February 1,
\n1979, entered  into between  the Company  and the Union and,
\ntherefore, the\tact of\tclosing down the Churchgate Division
\nwas not\t an unfair  labour practice  under section 28 of the
\nMaharashtra Act\t read with  Item No. 9 of Schedule IV to the
\nsaid  Act.   This  contention  too  found  favour  with\t the
\nIndustrial Court.  For\treaching  the  conclusion  that\t the
\nclosing down  of the  Churchgate Division  was not an act of
\nunfair labour  practice on  the part  of  the  Company,\t the
\nIndustrial Court  relied upon  the  decision  of  a  learned
\nSingle Judge  of the  Bombay  High  Court  in  the  case  of
\nMaharashtra General  Kamgar Union  v. Glass-Containers\tPvt.
\nLtd. and<\/a>  another. The\trelevant passage in that judgment is
\nas follows (at page 331) :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  difficult to accept the submission made on
\n\t  behalf of  the Union\tthat non-compliance with any
\n\t  statutory provisions\tsuch  as  s.25-FFA  must  be
\n\t  regarded as  failure by  the employer to implement
\n\t  an award,  settlement or  agreement. The  position
\n\t  might\t be   different\t in   relation\tto   certain
\n\t  statutory provisions\twhich are  declared to\thold
\n\t  the field
\n159<\/span>
\n\t  until replaced  by specific  provisions applicable
\n\t  to certain specific undertakings. For example, the
\n\t  Model Standing  Orders  may  govern  a  particular
\n\t  employer  and\t  his  workmen\t till  repulsed\t  or
\n\t  substituted by certified Standing Orders specially
\n\t  framed for  that  employer  and  approved  in\t the
\n\t  manner provided  under the  statute or  the rules.
\n\t  This would not imply that provisions such as those
\n\t  contained  in\t  s.  25FFA  or\t s.  25-FFF  of\t the
\n\t  Industrial Disputes  Act can\tbe held or deemed to
\n\t  be a\tpart of\t the contract of employment of every
\n\t  employee.  Any   such\t interpretation\t  would\t  be
\n\t  stretching the  language of  item 9  to an  extent
\n\t  which is not justified by the language thereof”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  not possible  to accept\tas correct the view taken in
\nthe  said   case.  It  is  an  implied\tcondition  of  every
\nagreement, including  a settlement, that the parties thereto
\nwill act in conformity with the law. Such a provision is not
\nrequired to  be expressly  stated in  any contract.  If\t the
\nservices of  a workman are terminated in violation of any of
\nthe  provisions\t  of  the   Industrial\tDisputes  Act,\tsuch
\ntermination is\tunlawful and  ineffective  and\tthe  workman
\nwould ordinarily be entitled to reinstatement and payment of
\nfull back wages. In the present case, there was a Settlement
\narrived at  between the\t Company and  the Union\t under which
\ncertain wages were to be paid by the Company to its workmen.
\nThe Company  failed to\tpay such  wages from  September\t 18,
\n1984,  to   the\t eighty-four  workmen  whose  services\twere
\nterminated on  the  ground  that  it  had  closed  down\t its
\nChurchgate Division.  As already  held, the  closing down of
\nthe  Churchgate\t  Division  was\t  illegal  as\tit  was\t  in
\ncontravention of  the provisions  of  section  25-0  of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act. Under\t sub-section (6)  of section
\n25-0, where  no application for permission under sub-section
\n(1) of\tsection 25-0 is made, the closure of the undertaking
\nis to  be deemed  to be illegal from the date of the closure
\nand the workmen are to be entitled to all the benefits under
\nany law\t for the  time being in force, as if the undertaking
\nhad not\t been closed  down.  The  eigty-four  workmen  were,
\ntherefore, in  law entitled  to receive\t from September\t 18,
\n1984, onwards their salary and all other benefits payable to
\nthem under  the Settlement dated February 1, 1979. These not
\nhaving been paid to them, there was a failure on the part of
\nthe Company to
\n160<\/span>
\nimplement the  said Settlement\tand consequently the Company
\nwas guilty of the unfair labour practice specified in Item 9
\nof Schedule  IV to  the Maharashtra  Act, and  the Union was
\njustified in  filing the  Complaint under  section 28 of the
\nMaharashtra Act complaining of such unfair labour practice.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was lastly  submitted that  several employees must
\nhave taken  up alternative employment during the intervening
\nperiod between\tthe date  of the  closure of  the Churchgate
\nDivision and  the hearing  of this  Appeal and\tan  inquiry,
\ntherefore, should  be directed\tto be  made into the amounts
\nreceived by  them from\tsuch alternative employment so as to
\nset off\t the amounts  so received against the back wages and
\nfuture salary  payable to  them. It  is difficult to see why
\nthese  eithty-four   workmen  should   be  put\t to  further
\nharrassment for\t the wrongful  act of  the  Company.  It  is
\npossible that  rather than  starve while  awaiting the final
\ndecision on  their complaint  some of these workmen may have
\ntaken alternative  employment. The  period which has elapsed
\nis, however,  too short\t for the  moneys  received  by\tsuch
\nworkmen from  the alternative  employment taken\t by them  to
\naggregate to  any sizeable  amount, and\t it would be fair to
\nlet the\t workmen retain\t such amount  by way of solatium for
\nthe shock  of having  their services terminated, the anxiety
\nand agony  caused thereby, and the endeavours, perhaps often
\nfruitless, to find alternative employment.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  also submitted  that most\tof the\tworkmen have
\nalready accepted  the retrenchment  compensation offered  by
\nthe Company  and cannot\t receive full  back wages  or future
\nsalary until  the amount  of such  compensation received  by
\nthem is\t adjusted. Learned  Counsel for\t the Union  has very
\nfairly\tconceded   that\t the   workmen\tcannot\t retain\t the
\nretrenchment compensation  and also claim full back wages as
\nalso  future   salary  in   full  and  that  the  amount  of
\nretrenchment compensation  received by the workmen should be
\nadjusted against  the back  wages and  future salary.  There
\nwould be no difficulty in adjusting the amount of back wages
\nagainst the  amount of retrenchment compensation received by
\nthe concerned  workmen but  if thereafter there is still any
\nbalance\t of   retrenchment  compensation   remaining  to  be
\nadjusted, it  would be too harsh to direct that such workmen
\nshould continue\t in service and work for the Company without
\nreceiving any  salary until  the balance of the retrenchment
\ncompensation stands
\n161<\/span>
\nfully adjusted;\t and, therefore,  so far as future salary is
\nconcerned, only\t a part of it can be directed to be adjusted
\nagainst\t the   balance\tof  the\t retrenchment  compensation,
\nprovided there\tis any\tsuch balance  left after setting off
\nthe back wages.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, this Appeal must succeed and is allowed
\nand the\t order dated July 26, 1985, passed by the Industrial
\nCourt, Maharashtra,  Bombay, dismissing\t the Complaint (ULP)
\nNo. 1273  of 1984  filed by  the Appellant Union against the
\nRespondents is\tset aside  and the said Complaint is allowed
\nand it\tis declared  that  the\tclosure\t of  the  Churchgate
\nDivision of  S.G. Chemicals  and Dyes  Trading\tLimited\t was
\nillegal and  the workmen  whose services  were terminated on
\naccount of such illegal closure continued and are continuing
\nin the\temployment of  the Company on and from September 18,
\n1984, and  are entitled\t to receive  from the  Company their
\nfull salary  and all  other benefits  under  the  Settlement
\ndated February 1, 1979, entered into between the Company and
\nthe Appellant  Union, from  September 18,  1984, until today
\nand thereafter\tregularly until\t their services are lawfully
\nterminated according  to law.  If any workman whose services
\nwere purported\tto be  terminated by the closing down of the
\nChurchgate Division of the Company has received retrenchment
\ncompensation from the Company, the amount of back wages will
\nbe set\toff against  such retrenchment\tcompensation and  if
\nafter  such   setting  off   any  balance   of\tretrenchment
\ncompensation still remains, it will be adjusted by deducting
\ntwenty per  cent from  the periodic  salary payable  to such
\nworkmen.\n<\/p>\n
     The Respondent  Company will pay to the Appellant Union
\nthe costs of this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n162<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 SCR (2) 126, 1986 SCC (2) 624 Author: D Madon Bench: Madon, D.P. PETITIONER: S.G. CHEMICAL AND DYES TRADING EMPLOYEES’ UNION Vs. RESPONDENT: S.G. CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING LIMITED AND ANOTHER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading ... on 3 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading ... on 3 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-25T09:53:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"62 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T09:53:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\"},\"wordCount\":10271,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\",\"name\":\"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading ... on 3 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T09:53:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading ... on 3 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading ... on 3 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-25T09:53:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"62 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986","datePublished":"1986-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T09:53:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986"},"wordCount":10271,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986","name":"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading ... on 3 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T09:53:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-chemical-and-dyes-trading-vs-s-g-chemicals-and-dyes-trading-on-3-april-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading … vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading … on 3 April, 1986"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}