DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. :- The First Respondent before the court conducts a hotel known as Ritz Hotel at Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. Sometime in 1976 the management of the hotel introduced South Indian specialties as part of the menu of food in some of the restaurants at the hotel and for room service. A South Indian Kitchen was opened. The workman whose services formed the subject matter of the dispute was appointed on probation as a South Indian cook in August 1976 and was confirmed with effect from 1st January, 1977. Subsequently, the management of the hotel took a decision to close down the South Indian Kitchen claiming that upon an assessment of viability the South Indian Kitchen had been found to be the least profitable of the kitchen department. A notice was issued to the appropriate Government on 16th September, 1991 under section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 indicating an intention of permanently closing down the South Indian Kitchen with effect from 16th November, 1991. The South Indian Kitchen was closed in pursuance of the notice and a letter of termination was addressed to the workman on 16th November, 1991 by which he was offered closure compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25-FFF as well as one month's notice pay and other legal dues including gratuity, earned salary and leave salary. The workman was instructed to collect the said payment from the head office. A complaint of unfair labour practices was instituted by the union, on behalf of the workman under items 4(a) and 4(f) of Schedule II and under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By an order dated 29th November, 1996 the Industrial Court issued a declaration that the management had committed unfair labour practices under Item 4(a) of Schedule II and under Item 9 of Schedule IV and granted to the workman full backwages from 16thNovember, 1991 together with retrenchment compensation and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the backwages. However, the claim for reinstatement was declined inasmuch as the Industrial Court held that from the evidence it had emerged that the South Indian Kitchen had been closed at the time when the complaint was instituted.

2. The management thereupon instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution which culminated in the order of a Learned Single Judge dated 14th January, 1999 which is questioned in these proceedings. The Learned Single Judge held that Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not attracted to the circumstances of the case. The order of the Industrial Court was accordingly quashed and set aside.

3. At the hearing of the Appeal three matters have been placed in issue before the Court. First and foremost it has been urged that the provisions of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are attracted and that consequently the Learned Single Judge was in error in interfering with the order of the Industrial Court. Secondly, it was urged that in any event the provisions of section 25-F would be applicable and the termination of the services of the workman must be regarded as illegal and void for non-compliance of those provisions. Thirdly, it was urged that an unfair labour practice with reference to Items 4(a) and 4(f) of the IInd Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands established. These three submissions will now be taken up seriatim.

4. The applicability of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is governed by section 25-K. Sub-section (1) of section 25-K provides that the Chapter shall apply to an industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than hundred workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months. The expression "industrial establishment" is for the purposes of the Chapter defined b