Case: Hindustan Steel Works Const Ltd Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Const Ltd. Employees' Union, Hyderabad

the business or activities of the employer would seem in law to be covered by this sub-section. The question has indeed to be decided on the facts of each case. In the present case the Ranchi Housing Project was clearly a distinct venture undertaken by the appellant and it had a distinct beginning and an end. Separate office was apparently set up for this venture and on the completion of the project or enterprise that undertaking was closed down. The Tribunal has actually so found. Its conclusion has not been shown to be wrong and we have no hesitation in agreeing with its view. 15. In the Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., 1974 (3) SCR 703 , this Court held : "The most important aspect in this particular case relating to closure, in our opinion, is whether one unit has such componential relation that closing of one must lead to the closing of the other or the one cannot reasonably exist without the other. Functional integrality will assume an added significance in a case of closure of a branch or unit. That the R. Mill is capable of functioning in isolation is of very material import in the case of closure. There is bound to be a shift of emphasis in application of various tests from one case to another. In other words, whether independent functioning of the R. Mill can at all be said to be affected by the closing of the S. Mill........ The fact of the unity of ownership, supervision and control and some other common features, which we have noticed above, do not justify a contrary conclusion on this aspect in the present case. There is considerable force in the submission of Mr. Chitaley that the R. Mill is a different line of business and the closure of the S. Mill has nothing to do with the functioning of the R. Mill. The matter may be absolutely different when in an otherwise going concern or a functioning unit some workmens services were terminated as being redundant or surplus to requirements. That most of the conditions of service of the two Mills were substantially identical can be easily explained by the fact that,being owned by the same employer and the two units being situated in close proximity, it will not be in the interest of the management and peace and well being of the Company to treat the employees differently creating heart burning and discrimination. For the same reason, there is no particular significance in this case even in the application of the standing orders of the Company to the employees of the R. Mill which, because of the non-requisite number of employees employed in the latter, is not even required under the law to have separate standing order. It is, in our opinion, a clear case of closure of an independent unit of a company and not a closure of a part of an establishment. 16. This decision was followed in Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay, 1987 (2) SCR 414. 17. It has been held repeatedly that all the tests evolved in the several decisions of this Court need not all be satisfied in every case. One has also to look to the nature and character of the undertaking while deciding the question. The tests evolved are merely to serve as guidelines. Now, let us look at the appellant-company. It is a government company wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India. Its job is to undertake construction works both in India and abroad. The construction works are not permanent works in the sense that as soon as the construction work is over, the establishment comes to an end at that place. In such a case, functional integrality assumes significance. The nature of the construction work may also differ from work to work or place to place, as the case may be. It is not even suggested by the respondent-Union that there is any functional integrality between the several units or several construction works undertaken by the appellant. It is not suggested that closure of one leads to the closure of others. There is no proximity between the several units/works undertaken by the appellant; they are spread all over India, indeed all over the world. It would thus appear that each of the works or construction projects undertaken by the appellant represent distinct establishments and did not constitute units of a single establishment. The Division Bench, however, was influenced by the fact that (i) when the workers are transferred from one unit to other unit they carried their seniority with them; (ii) the orders of appointment say that the employees are liable to be transferred to one place to other; that indeed, forty-three out of hundred workers concerned herein were brought to Hyderabad on transfer from other places and (iii) initially, Hederabad and Visakhapatnam were under the same administrative control and that when they were separated the workers were not asked to exercise their option to remain in one or the other unit. In our opinion, however, the fact that the Management reserved to itself the liberty of transferring the employees from one place to another did not mean that all the units of the appellant constituted one single establishment. In the case of a construction company like the appellant which undertakes construction works wherever awarded, does that work and winds up its establishment there and particularly where a number of local persons have to be and are appointed for the purpose of a particular work, mere unity of ownership, management and control are not of much significance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, the conclusion is inevitable that the units at Hyderabad were distinct establishments. Once this is so, workmen of the said unit had no right to demand absorption in other units on the Hyderabad units completing their job.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have been taken through the relevant material. It clearly discloses that both the works had come to a close; only certain very minor works remained to be done which were assigned to private contractors. Indeed, both the workmen and management were acting on the assumption that the works had come to an end. The retrenchment notices say so; the questions referred to the Tribunal are based upon the said assumption. If the works at Hyderabad were not completed, question of absorption of these workmen elsewhere would not have arisen. We, therefore, agree with thethat the works at Hyderabad had indeed come to aIndustrial Tribunal has taken one view which has been set aside by the learned Single Judge, whose view in turn has been upset by the Division Bench. It is in these circumstances that we are obliged to go into the said question. The tests relevant in this behalf have been laid down by this court in a number of decisions. Though it is not necessary to refer to all of them, a brief reference to a few of them would be in order.It has been held repeatedly that all the tests evolved in the several decisions of this Court need not all be satisfied in every case. One has also to look to the nature and character of the undertaking while deciding the question. The tests evolved are merely to serve as guidelines. Now, let us look at theIt is a government company wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India. Its job is to undertake construction works both in India and abroad. The construction works are not permanent works in the sense that as soon as the construction work is over, the establishment comes to an end at that place. In such a case, functional integrality assumes significance. The nature of the construction work may also differ from work to work or place to place, as the case may be. It is not even suggested by thethat there is any functional integrality between the several units or several construction works undertaken by the appellant. It is not suggested that closure of one leads to the closure of others. There is no proximity between the several units/works undertaken by the appellant; they are spread all over India, indeed all over the world. It would thus appear that each of the works or construction projects undertaken by the appellant represent distinct establishments and did not constitute units of a single establishment. The Division Bench, however, was influenced by the fact that (i) when the workers are transferred from one unit to other unit they carried their seniority with them; (ii) the orders of appointment say that the employees are liable to be transferred to one place to other; that indeed,out of hundred workers concerned herein were brought to Hyderabad on transfer from other places and (iii) initially, Hederabad and Visakhapatnam were under the same administrative control and that when they were separated the workers were not asked to exercise their option to remain in one or the other unit. In our opinion, however, the fact that the Management reserved to itself the liberty of transferring the employees from one place to another did not mean that all the units of the appellant constituted one single establishment. In the case of a construction company like the appellant which undertakes construction works wherever awarded, does that work and winds up its establishment there and particularly where a number of local persons have to be and are appointed for the purpose of a particular work, mere unity of ownership, management and control are not of much significance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, the conclusion is inevitable that the units at Hyderabad were distinct establishments. Once this is so, workmen of the said unit had no right to demand absorption in other units on the Hyderabad units completing their92 OF 1987In the yearabout two hundred workers including the respondents herein were transferred to Kudremukh unit. On March 27, 1981, 175 workers including the respondents were retrenched on the ground that they were surplus. On a dispute being raised by the appellants, the Government of Karnataka referred the following question to the Additional Industrial trial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudicationthe Management of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Kudremukh Malleshwara, Chickmaglur District justified in retrenching 101 workmen with effect from 27.3.Pending disposal of the said dispute, the respondents applied for interim relief. The Tribunal granted the same at the rate of sixty per cent of their wages with effect from November 1, 1982. That order was challenged by the Management before the High Court of Karnataka. A learned Single Judge, by his order dated April 22, 1983, modified the order of the Tribunal and directed that the Management shall pay interim relief at the rate ofof their wages for a period of three months from the month of April, 1983. The order of the learned Single Judge was left undisturbed by the Division Bench.25. While the dispute was pending before the Tribunal at Bangalore, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad made its award in I.D. No. 21 of 1982 (subject of Civil Appeal Nos.of 1985). The allowing of a writ petition filed by the Management against the award of the Hyderabad Tribunal and the setting aside of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (referred to in our order in Civil Appeal Nos.of 1985) all took place during the pendency of the present dispute before the Bangalore Tribunal. The workmen filed the copies of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court before the Tribunal and asked for a similar relief. The workmen also brought to the notice of the Tribunal the interim orders passed by this court in the aforesaid appeals. By its award dated July 31, 1986, the Tribunal held that though the retrenchment of 104 workmen by the Management was unjustified, the workmen are not entitled to an order of reinstatement in view of the facts and circumstances of the case but only to compensation equal to three months wages in addition to the retrenchment compensation already paid to them. Paras 35 and 36 of the Tribunals award, relevant on this aspect, read thuslast point for consideration would be regarding the nature of the relief that should be granted to the workmen. Normally, if retrenchment is held as invalid, they are entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits. But, when we analyse the facts of these references, it will be clear that the management will be placed in a predicament and great hardship will be caused if the rule of reinstatement is adhered to. The management has to work up the seniority of all these workmen and their fitment in an appropriate scale at this distance of time. If the different units are facing the burden of excess manpower the reinstatement of these workmen will be an additional burden which should not be normally imposed. Apart from that, it would cause a considerable confusion and unrest amongst all the concerned defeating the very object of Sectionof the Industrial Disputes Act. In similar circumstances in the workmen of National Radio and Electronics Company v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Writ Petition No. 6334 of 1974, the Karnataka High Court has awarded compensation to the workmen as redressal of their grievances. In the Industrial Chemicals Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras, 1977 (ii) LLJ 137, it has been held as followsis settled position of law that once it is found that retrenchment is unjustified and improper it is for the Labour Court to consider what relief the retrenched worker is entitled to. It is open to the Labour Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, to take note of the circumstances, in the particular case and decide not to grant the relief of reinstatement, but grant instead of relief by way of compensation to thefollows therefore that, whenever the retrenchment is held to be unreasonable and improper and if their reinstatement works great hardship on the management, then the Court may grant compensation to them. Hence, the workers in these references are entitled to compensation.For the reasons foregoing, in my opinion, the management has not justified the reasonableness or proprietary of the retrenchment of these workmen. The retrenched workmen should be awarded a compensation of three months wages each in addition to the retrenchment compensation which is already paid to them.The appellants have not been able to satisfy us that the several reasons given by the Tribunal for not directing reinstatement of theare incorrect as a fact or that they are irrelevant or impermissible in law. That theis groaning under the weight of surplus and excessiveis not denied as a fact; indeed, it is an undeniable fact. The Industrial Tribunal is entitled to take note of the said fact and to mould the relief to suit the justice of the case. In exercise of this Courts power under Article 136 of the Constitution, it is not open to us to substitute our opinion for that of the Industrial Tribunal unless we find that the reasons given by it in the paras aforesaid are either incorrect factually or irrelevant or impermissible inL NO. 4115 OF 1984On a consideration of the material placed before it, the Tribunal held that the retrenchment was not legal but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it did not think it appropriate to order reinstatement and other incidental benefits. In lieu thereof, it granted compensation equal to the wages of two months in addition to wages of one month already paid exclusive of the retrenchment compensation. Para 44 of the award brings out the reasons for not granting the relief of retrenchment, back wages and continuity of service. It readsThe workmen have contended that seniors have been retrenched, though many juniors have been retained. Not a single incident has been shown as to show was the said junior retained at Kudremukh even after 24.9.1980. If some of the persons who had been already transferred were juniors to these persons, it has been already held that as on 15.9.1980, they were no longer in the service of theestablishment of Kudremukh and it cannot be said that they were still the juniors of these workmen. However, the facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that on 2 points the management is not on a firm ground. The first of them is that the management has not proved that only the seniors were transferred irrespective of the unit seniority or otherwise, though they had professed to do so in their various meetings with the unions. Secondly the retrenchment compensation and wages in lieu of one months notice have not been paid either earlier to or at the very moment of the time of retrenchment. The learned counsel for the management referred to the case of Workmen of Coimbatore Pioneer ``B Mills Ltd. v. Labour Court and others, 1980 (1) LLJ 503 and contended that in every case, there need not be any order of reinstatement and that even if it is found that there is some lacuna, the Tribunal may not order for reinstatement and especially in view of the fact that themanagement is labouring under a heavy load of surplus labour force. The fact of the reported case disclose that the Labour Court has held that the retrenchment was bona fide, but that there was noncompliance of clause (b) of SectionIn that context, the Honble High Court had enhanced the compensation to two months wages and the Honble Supreme Court of India added a sum of Rs. 750/to each worker in lieu of reinstatement. In my view, for such infirmity as discussed above, the workman of the present case should be paid a fair and reasonable compensation of wages of two months, in addition to the wages of one month already paid (exclusive of the retrenchment compensation).The reason once again is the ``heavy load of surplus labour force with the Management. It is not shown that the said reason is either incorrect as a fact or irrelevant or impermissible in law.