V.BHARGAVA, J.

(1) AN industrial dispute relating to the lock out and closure of a factory arose between respondent No. 1, Messrs. Sur Iron and Steel Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and its workmen represented by Sur Iron and Steel Co. Shrarnik Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) and Sur Iron and Steel Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association). Three issues were framed by the Government of West Bengal and referred foradjudication to the Fifth Industrial tribunal. These issues are as follows:

"(1) Whether the lock out of the factory with effect from 22/04/1962, is justified ?

(2) Whether the closure of the factory from 22/06/1962, is real and bona fide ? Whether the closure is beyond the control of the management and in the circumstances it is justified ? and

(3) To what relief, if any, are the workers entitled ?"

The tribunal answered both the first and the second questions against the workmen, holding that the lock out was justified, that the closure of the factory was real and bona fide and that, it was beyond the control of the management and, in the circumstances, justified. Consequently, the tribunal, by its award, held that the workers were not entitled to any relief. The Union alone has filed this appeal against this Award of the tribunal by special leave impleading the Company and the Association as respondents.

(2) THE facts relating to the first issue, as found by the tribunal, are that the Company was carrying on business in manufacture and sale of various types of articles, such as Stone-crushers, Granulators, Welding Transformers, Fire Fighting Equipment, etc. The factory was situated at Nos. 8/5 and 9, Canal Street, Calcutta and was employing more than 500 workmen. The factory used to observe every Sunday as the weekly off day. On 19/04/1962, the Company received a letter from the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation conveying Ae information that certain restrictions had been imposed on the use of electricity by the State government, as aresult of which the supply of electricity on every Saturday was to be curtailed, so that there would be no supply of electricity for running the factory from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturdays. The letter further stated that the Company should observe every Saturday as .the off day instead of Sunday. Thereupon, the Company issued a notice on 20/04/1962, informing all the workmen that, with effect from 21/04/1962, Saturday instead of Sunday would be the off day in the factory until further orders. The notice was circulated amongst the workmen and the original one even bears a number of initials indicating that it had been circulated amongst the staff. It appears that, in pursuance of this notice, the workmen did not attend the factory on Saturday, 21/04/1962. The next day, on Apnl 22, 1962, which was Sunday and which, according to the notice, was to be a working day the workmen again did not attend the factory to join their duties. Some of them actually collected near the gates, but they refused to do any work, claiming that the factory should be closed on Sunday as before. The management made repeated requests and tried to persuade the workmen to join work. There was partial success in persuading some of the workmen to join work, but the other workmen did not permit their going in to do the work and announced that they had decided to go on a strike. As a result of this step taken by the workmen, the factory declared a lock-out the same day on 22/04/1962, because the work in the factory came to a complete stand still on account of the illegal strike resorted to by the workmen. These facts have been found by the tribunal after a full consideration of the evidence led on behalf of the Company and the Union. The tribunal also took into account subsequent correspondence which was addressed on behalf of the Union to the government authorities and indicated that the plea of the Union, which was