Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No. 264 of 1985 dated March 26, 1985 affirming the decision of the learned single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No. 867 of 1980 dated January 18, 1984.

2. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing barrels and drums at its factory in Bombay. In the year 1971 it had engaged about 1100 workmen about 600 permanent workmen and 500 temporary workmen. It is alleged that since 1968 the factory was working intermittently and that the situation had worsened on account of non-availability of raw materials and other compelling circumstances. By 1971 the company could see no other alternative but to close down its factory and accordingly it issued a closure notice dated September 30, 1971 which was duly displayed on the Notice Board and that it also intimated all its workmen that their services would stand terminated due to the closure of the factory with effect from November 1, 1971. The workmen also were informed that they would be paid compensation under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant alleges that soon after the display of the closure notice dated September 30, 1971 the workmen indulged in go slow tactics and various acts of sabotage rendering the running of the factory and office virtually impossible. The whole work was paralysed. It is alleged that during the month of October there were meetings of workmen and an atmosphere of terror, intimidation and vilification prevailed. On October 30, 1971 with the commencement of the first shift i.e. practically on the eve of the effective date of the closure on November 1, 1971 in terms of the closure notice a very grave and tense atmosphere prevailed on the premises of the factory of the appellant and by the afternoon all the workers and members of the staff became more and more aggressive and after threatening the managerial staff resorted to acts of rioting, hooliganism and destroyed considerable part of the appellants properties. The situation further aggravated by the workmen of the second shift joining the said workmen of the first shift. The workmen of the first shift continued to remain in the precincts of the factory and squatted in the passage leading to the office of the appellant where the directors and senior officers were present and thus blocked the passage. The union leaders addressed the workers using inflammatory and defamatory language against the directors and officers. At that stage the management requested the assistance of the police. The police force arrived accordingly. The Assistant Commissioner of Police S. N. Minocher Homji appealed to the workers not to prevent the directors and senior officers from leaving the factory. Ignoring the said appeal, the union and senior leaders "gheraoed" the directors and senior officers and when the police tried to assist the directors and senior officers to leave, the workers pounced upon the police party and tried. to attack them. When the police tried to resist the workers became more violent and threw missiles like nuts, grinding wheels, soda water bottles, stones, brickbats etc. at the police and the directors and officers including their cars and the police van. One sharp missile struck the eye of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and he lost his eye. About 26 Police Officers and constables were injured. A grinding wheel thrown at the car of the director would have caused fatal injury but only the car was badly damaged. Machinery to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- was damaged. The police then arrested 183 workers while the rest of them fled away.

3. In view of the grave law and order situation, the company decided to terminate the services of the workmen with immediate effect by its notice dated October, 30. 1971 issued tinder the Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the appellant. The said notic