In dealing with industrial disputes, tribunals should not be unduly influenced by academic questions of law and should make an attempt to deal with the merits of each case according to its facts and circumstances.

Judgement

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute between the appellant, Kays Construction Co. (Private) Ltd., Allahabad, and Messrs. Kays Construction Co., Allahabad by its sole proprietor Mr. H. M. Khosla, respondent 2, on the one hand, and the Workmen originally employed by respondent 2 through the Secretary, Kays Construction Mazdoor Sabha, Allahabad, respondent 1, on the other. The appellant is a private limited company having its registered office at 14, Stephen House, Calcutta, and carries on the business of constructing railway coaches at Allahabad against the orders received from the railway administration. The appellant was incorporated on June 23, 1956, and after its incorporation it submitted two tenders on February 2 and December 15, 1956, in response to advertisements published by the North-Eastern Railway calling for tenders for construction of railway coaches. These tenders were accepted by the railway authorities and their acceptance was communicated to the appellant at the end of March 1957. It appears that the Chief Mechanical Engineer North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, wrote to respondent 2 on April 1,1957, that the siding at Allahabad which had been given in the possession of respondent 2 should be handed over to the appellant. On April 10, 1957, the appellant entered into an agreement with Mr. H. M. Khosla for the purchase of machinery and tools, furniture and fittings belonging to respondent 2 for Rs. 55, 125. By the end of April 1957, the appellant advertised that it wanted to employ workmen for the purpose of constructing coaches for the railway administration. In response to the said advertisement saveral persons applied and were employed by the appellant; among them were some of the workmen of respondent 2. Respondent 2 bad been carrying on the work of constructing railway coaches under orders received from the railway administration; but it is alleged that respondent 2 decided to close its business owing to financial difficulties and to terminate the services of its employees. Meanwhile a dispute had arisen between respondent 2 and its workmen, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (General) Allahabad for its decision (Case No. 12 of 1957). This dispute ended in a compromise and it was agreed by respondent 2 that bonus would be paid by it to its workmen for the entire period of its existence.

2. Respondent 1 did not accept respondent 2 s allegation that it had closed its business and the contention of respondent 1 was that the plea of closure of business had been adopted by respondent 2 as a device to deprive its workmen of their legitimate rights. In fact the workmen claimed that notwithstanding the change of the name of the concern, the appellant was bound to employ, and continue the employment of, all the workmen of respondent 2 on the same terms and conditions of service. These allegations were not admitted either by the appellant or respondent 2 and that has raised the present dispute.

3. By the notification dated October 5, l957, the Labour Commissioner, U P, referred this dispute to the Industrial Tribunal (Sugar) Allahabad, for adjudication. The dispute thus referred to adjudication is "whether the management of Messrs. Kays Construction Co. (Private) Ltd., Allahabad, are required to reinstate the old workmen given in the annexure of Messrs. Kays Construction Co., Allahabad; if so what details."

4. Before the tribunal respondent 1 urged that there was no genuine closure of respondent 2, that workmen s services had never been properly or validly terminated, that the appellant was the continuer and successor of respondent 2 and as such was found to continue the workmen in employment, that the refusal of work on February 18, 1957, February 23, 1957 and March 13, 1957 and other dates was a mala fide act of the employers and amounted to an illegal lockout and that the workmen, were entitled to be reinstated by the appellant and to be paid full wages for t