Case: R.K. Shinde &amp; Others Vs. Shekoba Auto Private Limited, &amp; Another

be fully unsupported by evidence.25. The question as to whether the industrial establishments owned by the same management constitute separate unit or one establishment has been considered by the Supreme Court on several occasions. In the case of Management of Wenger & Co. v. Their Workmen, (1963) 2 S.C.R. 862, where the Supreme Court was examining as to whether wine shops are part of hotel establishment observed as under:-The question as to whether industrial establishments owned by the same managements constitute separate units or one establishment has been considered by this Court on several occasions. Several factors are relevant in deciding this question. But it is important to bear in mind that the significance or importance of these relevant factors would not be the same in each case; whether or not the two units constitute one establishment or are really two separate and independent units, must be decided on the facts of each case. Mr. Pathak contends that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the restaurants cannot exist without the wine shops and that there is functional integrality between them. It may be conceded that the observation of the tribunal that there is functional integrality between a restaurant and a wine shop and that the restaurants cannot exist without wine shops is not strictly accurate or correct. But the test of functional integrality or the test whether one unit can exist without the other, though important in some cases, cannot be stressed in every case without having regard to the relevant facts of that case, and so, we are not prepared to accede to the argument that the absence of functional integrality and the fact that the two units can exist one without the other necessarily show that where they exist they are necessarily separate units and do not amount to one establishment. It is hardly necessary to deal with this point elaborately because this Court had occasion to examine this problem in several decisions in the past, vide Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen; Pratap Press, etc. v. Their Workmen; Pakshiraja Studios v. Its Workmen; South India Mill Owners Association v. Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union; Fine Knitting Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Court and D.C.M. Chemica Works v. Its Workmen.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear view that the decision of the learned Member of the Industrial Court did not call for any interference.26. Before we part with this appeal, we are required to quote a recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368. wherein the Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the reported judgment as under:-9. The courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd., v. Harton (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL) Lord MacDermott observed:(All ER p. 14C-D)The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Wiles, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge...10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970) 2 All ER 294 Lord Reid (All ER p.297 g-h) Lord Atkins speech ... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd., v. Sandham (No.2) (1971) 2 All ER 1267 observed : )All ER p. 1274 d-e) One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament; and, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972) All ER 749; Lord Morris said: (All ER p.761c):There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.* * * *Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]13. In our view, the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the case of the appellant would fall under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTUPULP Act, 1971 by placing reliance on M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., and other judgments referred to in his order. We are in agreement with Mr. Deshmukh that the facts of the case as pleaded in the complaint clearly bring the complaint within the ambit of Item 9 of Schedule IV as held in the case of S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union (supra) by the Supreme Court. On principle, the facts in the case of S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union are almost similar with the case inis difficult to appreciate how this principle of interpretation can be invoked by learned counsel for the appellant in connection with item no. 1 of Schedule IV. The word discharge is a general word. It is followed by the word dismissal which contemplates only one category of cases or situations where penalty is imposed by the employer on the workmen concerned. The rule of ejusdem generis would have applied if the word discharge represented a particular species belonging to the genus reflected by the general word dismiss. This is a converse case where a general word discharge is followed by the word dismiss which is of a particular nature or pertains to a limited class or category of penal situations. Obviously, therefore, neither of them is a genus and nor of them is a species of the very same genus. The word discharge connotes an entirely different category of orders comprising of both simpliciter discharge orders not by way of penalty as well as discharge orders by way of penalty but not involving extremely pernicious results flowing from such orders while the word dismiss is purely an order of penalty and that too of an extreme type. Consequently, the aforesaid rule of interpretation cannot be of any avail to learned senior counsel for the appellant. On the contrary, as seen by us earlier, the words discharge and dismissal as employed by the Legislature in item no. 1 of Schedule IV covered different types of situations and circumstances under which they are passed. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that unless the respondent shows that he was discharged by way of penalty, he cannot invoke any of the clauses of item no. 1 of SchedulePepsi Co. India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.s case the learned Single Judge while referring to S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Unions case distinguished the same without addressing the core issue as it observed that this judgment (S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union) cannot be interpreted to mean that the Apex Court has given ato the provisions of tem 1 of Schedule IV which was not the ratio in the decision in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Unions case. In our view, therefore, the decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Respondent and which led the learned Single Judge to hold that the Industrial Court will have no jurisdiction, does not appeal to reason. Therefore, we find that the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Respondent is baseless.C.U. Singh, the learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent employer, submitted that the learned Single Judge has examined the matter in detail and has come to the conclusion that the evidence on record clearly proved that these were two distinct units as the petitioners products trade mark was Borger whereas thewas the trade mark used by Respondent No. 41 i.e., the other unit Neotronics (P) Limited., and as they were producing different products, the Industrial Court has misdirected itself and has based its finding on excise certificate issued by the excise officers which also was not correct as Shekoba Auto Private Limpid was manufacturing plastic film capacitors whereas the Neotronics (P) Limited was manufacturing wire wound resistors and plastic film capacitors.What we find is that this fact has been dealt by the learned Single Judge in a very casual way by observing that in any event the excise certificate is only for revenue purpose and has nothing to do with the specific types of capacitors or the end usage of the same and as the witness for the employer has explained the line of production in hisand even if it is assumed that they were manufacturing same and similar product, it would not mean that the petitioner and the respondent no. 41 were functionally integrated.One important aspect of the case which has been overlooked is that when one of the original two firms was converted into two companies i.e. Shekoba and Neotronics, the workmen were absorbed in the two companies. It has been tried to be canvassed before us that it was so done so as not to result in unemployment of the workmen and it is not necessarily indicative of the fact that the workmen were absorbed in the two companies, the two companies are part of the same establishment. Further, the case of the respondent employer is to be understood in the backdrop that though the respondent, particularly in respect of Shekoba Auto Private Limited claims that in substance it was a closure but they did not declare it to be so but only resorted to retrenchment of their workmen on the pretext that manufacturing of product was discontinued due to want of orders and loss suffered by the company and, therefore, it was thought proper to retrench the workmen. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that Shekoba did not initiate any proceeding for closing down the undertaking.The learned Single judge while dealing with the matter under Article 226 which leaves very limited scope has not given any finding to the effect that the factors considered by the member of the Industrial Court are either perverse or not germane to the issue. It is equally well settled that the decision of the Tribunal on a question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless at the least it is shown to be fully unsupported by evidence.