IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of fact by courts below is binding on Supreme Court unless perverse.
Even in case of mixed question of fact and law Supreme Court will not interfere unless the finding is perverse.
High Court, under Article 227, is duty bound to see that subordinate court did not commit any illegality or perversity.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Trade Union against the final judgment and order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5241 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1-Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the award dated 08.04.2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in a Complaint (ULP) No.544 of 1990 and, in consequence, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

3. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out few relevant facts infra.

4. The appellant is the Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 having several members working in Factories. Respondent No.1 owned a factory (manufacturing unit) at Pune. This Unit was originally owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who, in turn, sold it to respondent No.4 in 1991 and then it was owned by respondent No.1. The Unit was engaged in the manufacture of several components like Traction Gears for supply to Railways, forging for oil industries and other manufacturing units etc. The members of the appellant-Union were working in respondent No.1’s factory at all relevant time.

5. In 1990, respondent No.1 suffered business loss in running the said manufacturing unit and, therefore, decided to close down the said unit permanently. With that end in view, respondent No.1 served a notice of closure to the State Government (Maharashtra) under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, “ID Act”) on 29.08.1990 with a copy to the appellant-Union expressing therein their intention to close the operation of the Unit on expiry of 60 days with effect from 29.10.1990.

6. The appellant-Union, felt aggrieved of the closure notice issued by respondent No.1, filed complaint against respondent No.1 under Section 28 read with Items 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Industrial Court at Pune in October 1990 being Complaint(ULP) No.544/1990.

7. In substance, the grievance of the appellant in their complaint was that since respondent No.1 had employed more than 100 workers on an average per working day for preceding 12 months in their manufacturing unit, the provisions of Chapter VB (Section 25-K) of the ID Act and, in turn, all the relevant provisions contained therein were applicable to respondent No.1. It was alleged that due to this reason, it was obligatory upon respondent No.1 to have ensured compliance of all the relevant provisions applicable for closure of the Unit. It was alleged that since admittedly the relevant provisions applicable to closure were not complied with by respondent No.1, a case was made out under the ID Act read with the Act to seek a declaration that the intended closure declared by respondent No.1, vide their notice dated 29.08.1990, is illegal under the ID Act read with the Act with a further grant of all consequential reliefs to each worker arising out of grant of such declaration sought by the appellant in the Complaint in their favour.

8. Respondent No.1 (employer) filed a reply and denied therein the allegations made by the appellant-Union in their complaint. According to Respondent No.1 they never employed more than 100 workers in their Unit so as to attract the rigor of Chapter VB and other related provisions of the ID Act to give effect to the closure. In other words, according to respondent No.1, the strength of workers working in their Unit was always less than 100 in number, therefore, the provisions of Chapter VB and the related provisions of the I.D. Act had no application to respondent No.1. It was, therefore, contended that the decision taken by respondent No.1 to close the Unit with effect from 29.10.1990 was legal, proper and in accordance with law and hence could not be faulted with.

9. The parties adduced e