IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 172/2007 Decided on: 19.10.2009 _________________________________________________ M/s. Shubh Timb Steels. … Appellant. Versus YPL (STS) Workers Union (CITU) and another. …Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, A.C.J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. K.K. Gupta and Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________ This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.6.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge rendered in CWP No. 713/2001. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court: 1. Whether the lay off resorted to by the Management of M/s Shubh Timb Steels, Ltd., plot No. 22-24, Sector 1, Parwanoo, District Solan (HP) in respect of 16 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 workers w.e.f. 2.9.1996 is legal and justified, if not, to what relief including lay off compensation and other service benefits, the aggrieved workmen are entitled to? 2. Whether the demands raised by the YPL, Shubh Steels Limited Worker’s union with the management of M/s Shubh Steels, Ltd., Parwanoo vide their demand notice dated 22.8.1996 (copy enclosed) are genuine and justified, if yes, which of their should be accepted and from which date?” In sequel to the reference, the members of the respondent- union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workmen’ for convenience sake) filed a claim petition. It is mentioned therein that the lay off resorted to by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the management’ for convenience sake) was illegal and they were entitled to the wages for the lay off period alongwith other dues. They have also submitted demand charter on 22.8.1996 for the payment of minimum wages and other allowances like, house rent allowance, payment of money in lieu of shoes, washing allowance. The management has filed the reply and has also taken the preliminary objection to the effect that the conciliation proceedings were not held in accordance with section 12 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake). On merits, it was contended that the workmen were let off as the raw material was not available. It was also contended that there was no requirement to seek permission from the State Government before laying off the workmen. It was also stated in the reply that wood section is a separate industrial establishment and less than 50 workmen had been employed in this unit. The learned Labour Court has partially answered the reference in favour of the 3 workmen. They were held entitled to the wages and other allowances as admissible under law with effect from 2.9.1996 for the period of lay off alongwith allowances as permissible under law. The management challenged the award made by the learned Labour Court dated 14.6.2001 passed in reference No. 115/1996 by way of CWP No. 713/2001. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 13.6.2006. It is in these circumstances the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated section 2 (ka) of the Act. He then contended that there was no requirement to seek permission from the State Government before laying off the workmen. He also contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that there were two distinct and separate industrial units and neither of them had employed more than 50 workmen. He finally contended that section 25 (M) of the Act was not applicable in the present case. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. PW-1 Sh. Nina Ram has appeared on behalf of the workmen. He is General Secretary of the union. He has deposed that there were two departments of the company. The first unit was of steel and the second was of ply wood and about 130 workmen were employed by the company. Sh. S.S. Modgil has appeared as RW-1. He is the Manager of the factory at Parwanoo. According to him, manufacturing of the 4 company consists of wooden articles and manufacturing of steel ingots and these two units are separate units. He has further deposed that as per the record of the two units, the supervisory staff etc. is separate. According to him, the number of workmen employed were less than 50 and there was no inter-staff transfers. He has admitted in his cross- examination that the Certified Standing Orders of the Company are applicable to both the units. There is common union of both the units with whom the management had negotiated in the past. The management has not placed any material on record to suggest that there were two separate units. It was necessary for the management to place on record statutory record, balance sheets, registration etc. to prove that there were two separate units. The learned Labour Court and learned Single Judge have drawn a just conclusion that the management has failed to prove that there were two separate units. The management has not placed before the Labour Court any tangible evidence to establish that in the unit less than 100 workmen were employed. The management ought to have produced the documentary evidence or oral evidence to establish this fact. The learned Labour Court has correctly recorded the finding that there were more than 100 workmen employed in the establishment. Since more than 100 workmen were employed, it was necessary for the management to take prior permission under section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the documentary evidence led by the parties. He after correctly analyzing the facts has upheld the findings of the learned Labour Court that the establishment was one and had employed more than 100 workmen. We are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that in exercising a writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot 5 sit in appeal over findings of industrial tribunal and, therefore, cannot re- appreciate the evidence. It is settled law by now that the findings of fact recorded by fact findings authority should be treated as final. It is not open to the High Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction in the findings recorded by the tribunal merely on the ground that the material on which the tribunal/labour court had acted, was not sufficient or not creditable. The findings cannot be interfered with merely because another view is also possible. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, it is held that the management has failed to establish that there are two separate units. The management has also failed to prove that less than 100 workmen were employed. It was necessary for the management to seek prior permission of the State before laying off the workmen. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.10. 2009. *awasthi*