1. Dispute regarding recognition of a company as either a single undertaking or two separate undertakings (Cotton Textile and Hosiery) under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K.Sarkar : K.N.Wanchoo : P.B.Gajendragadkar
Fine Knitting Company Limited
Versus
Industrial Court, Bombay
Case No. : 306 of 1961
Date of Decision : 2/15/62
Advocates Appeared: Barot N.M. : Mehta J.P. : Shroff I.M.
Important Points
The unity of industrial establishments is determined by functional integration and independence rather than just ownership. If different sections of a business operate independently, serve different markets, and have distinct employment conditions, they can be recognized as separate undertakings under the law.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Relations
Act Referred
BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT: S.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.227, Art.226
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.2(3)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.227, Art.226
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.2(3)
Headnote
(A) Industrial Relations Act - Section 11 - Recognition of undertakings - Determination of whether two industrial sections constitute a single unit or separate undertakings - Unity of ownership, management, and finance are not decisive factors - Functional integration and interdependence must be examined - If a section produces goods for the general market and operates independently, it may be recognized as a separate undertaking. (Paras 5, 7, 9)
(B) Industrial Relations Act - Section 11(1) - Scope of power of Registrar - Power to recognize separate undertakings carried on by the same company if they are distinct and independent. (Para 14)
(C) Res Judicata - Application to industrial disputes - If a party was not a party to the original proceedings, they cannot be precluded from making a subsequent application on the ground of res judicata. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
An industrial establishment engaged in both spinning and hosiery activities was recognized as a single undertaking in the hosiery industry. Subsequently, it was determined by the authorities that the spinning section had grown significantly, producing yarn for the general market and operating independently. The employer maintained separate wage and bonus structures for employees in the two sections. The authorities then recognized the establishment as two separate undertakings: one in the cotton textile industry and one in the hosiery industry.
Findings of Court:
The spinning section is no longer subsidiary to the hosiery section, as a majority of its production is sold in the market. The lack of functional interdependence is evident from the fact that the spinning section continued to operate even when the hosiery section was closed. Furthermore, the employer's practice of paying different minimum wages and bonuses to employees of the two sections indicates they were treated as separate units.
Issues: Whether the spinning and hosiery sections of the establishment should be recognized as a single industrial unit or as two separate undertakings under the Act, and whether the statute permits the splitting of a concern into multiple undertakings.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of the unity of industrial establishments depends on several factors, but no single test is decisive. Where sections of a business are distinct, independent, and not functionally integral—evidenced by market sales, independent operation, and separate employment conditions—the Registrar is justified in recognizing them as separate undertakings. The law allows for the recognition of several separate undertakings carried on by the same company.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
(B) Industrial Relations Act - Section 11(1) - Scope of power of Registrar - Power to recognize separate undertakings carried on by the same company if they are distinct and independent. (Para 14)
(C) Res Judicata - Application to industrial disputes - If a party was not a party to the original proceedings, they cannot be precluded from making a subsequent application on the ground of res judicata. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
An industrial establishment engaged in both spinning and hosiery activities was recognized as a single undertaking in the hosiery industry. Subsequently, it was determined by the authorities that the spinning section had grown significantly, producing yarn for the general market and operating independently. The employer maintained separate wage and bonus structures for employees in the two sections. The authorities then recognized the establishment as two separate undertakings: one in the cotton textile industry and one in the hosiery industry.
Findings of Court:
The spinning section is no longer subsidiary to the hosiery section, as a majority of its production is sold in the market. The lack of functional interdependence is evident from the fact that the spinning section continued to operate even when the hosiery section was closed. Furthermore, the employer's practice of paying different minimum wages and bonuses to employees of the two sections indicates they were treated as separate units.
Issues: Whether the spinning and hosiery sections of the establishment should be recognized as a single industrial unit or as two separate undertakings under the Act, and whether the statute permits the splitting of a concern into multiple undertakings.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of the unity of industrial establishments depends on several factors, but no single test is decisive. Where sections of a business are distinct, independent, and not functionally integral—evidenced by market sales, independent operation, and separate employment conditions—the Registrar is justified in recognizing them as separate undertakings. The law allows for the recognition of several separate undertakings carried on by the same company.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
I.M.SHROFF, J.P.MEHTA, N.M.BAROT
I.M.SHROFF, J.P.MEHTA, N.M.BAROT
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends unity of ownership, management, and functional integration; respondents argue the spinning section operates as an independent commercial enterprise. (Para 6 , 11 , 13 , 15 )
3. Spinning section's dominance, market sales, independent operation during hosiery closure, and differential wage/bonus structures demonstrate the sections are separate industrial activities. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Industrial unity depends on functional integrality; separate businesses within one company may be recognized as distinct undertakings if they are independent and not interdependent. (Para 5 , 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the order recognizing the spinning and hosiery sections as two separate undertakings is upheld. (Para 16 )
6. How is the unity of two industrial establishments determined?
Unity is determined by evaluating several factors, including functional integration and interdependence. No single test is decisive; the significance and importance of various factors vary depending on the specific case. (Para 5 )
7. Can a single company be recognized as multiple separate undertakings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act?
Yes. If a company carries on several distinct businesses or industrial works that are separate, distinct, and independent rather than functionally integral or interdependent, the Registrar may recognize them as separate undertakings. (Para 14 )
8. What factors indicate a lack of functional integration between industrial sections?
Indicators include one section producing goods not used by the other for market sale, the ability of one section to operate while the other is closed, and the employer paying different minimum wages and bonuses to employees of different sections. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
9. Does res judicata apply to a party who was not involved in the original proceedings?
No. A party who was not a party to the original proceedings cannot be precluded from making a subsequent application on the ground of res judicata. (Para 15 )
GAJENDRA GADKAR, J.
(1) THE appellant, the Fine Knitting Co. Ltd., as incorporated in 1908 and its principal activity then was to manufacture hosiery. In 1924, when the appellant shifted its factory from Barejadi to Ahmedabad, it installed spinning machinery with 9000 spindles with a view to ensure suitable and even supply of yarn for its hosiery manufacture. On May 30, 1939, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 (No. XXV of 1938), whereby hosiery concerns were included in the definition of Cotton Textile Industry. Subsequently on July 17, 1945, another notification was issued as a result of which the hosiery manufacture was excluded from the Cotton Textile Industry and it was covered by a separate notification issued under the said Act. This latter notification which was made applicable to the Hosiery Industry specified that the said notification inter alia, to all concerns using power and employing twenty or more persons which are engaged, in the manufacture of hosiery or other knitted articles made of cotton and all processes incidental or supplementary thereto. After this notification was issued, the appellant ceased to be covered by the extended and inclusive definition of the Cotton Textile Industry and was recognised as a Hosiery concern being engaged in the manufacture of hosiery. Later, in 1946, the BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT , 1946 (No. XI of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act.), was applied to the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act had been applied, as a result of s.2(3) of the former Act. In consequence, for the purposes of the Act, the appellant concern was recognised as an undertaking of the Hosiery Industry under s.11 This was the result of notification No. 10 of 19.48, issued by the .Registrar under the Act. This position was recognised by the Industrial Tribunal in indus- trial adjudications concerning disputes between the appellant and its workmen.
(2) EVEN so, respondent No. 3, the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, sought to reopen the issue by applying by to the Registrar on October 16, 1953, that the appellants factory should be recognised as an undertaking both in the Cotton Textile Industry and the Hosiery Industry. The Registrar who is the second respondent in the present appeal held an enquiry and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no justification for splitting up the concern into two units and recognising them as suggested by the third respondent. The third respondent did not prefer an appeal against the said decision of the second respondent; but respondent No. 4 who are the five elected representatives of the employees of the appellant sought to challenge the said decision of the second respondent by preferring an appeal to the Industrial Court, respondent No. 1. The appellant contended that respondent) No. 4 were not entitled to prefer an appeal because they were not parties to the proceedings in the original application before the second respondent. This preliminary objection was upheld and the appeal preferred by .respondent No. 4 was dismissed. The result was that the order passed by the Registrar rejecting the application made by respondent No. 3 concluded the dispute.
(3) EVEN while the said appeal was pending before the first respondent, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 initiated the present proceedings by means of two applications made before the second respondent in which the same relief was claimed that the appellant concern should be recognised as an undertaking both in the Cotton Textile Industry and in the Hosiery Industry. The second respondent, however. rejected these applications on the ground that since he gave his earlier decision, there had been no change of circumstances and so there was no justification for reconsidering the matter over again. The third and the fourth respondents then went in appeal before the first respondent and their appeals were allowed
