Distinct departments of a partnership firm do not constitute a single industrial establishment under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing retrenchment procedure must adhere to regulations.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award made by the respondent No. 1 the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on 31st August 1959, in Reference (CGIT) No. 7 of 1959.

2. The petitioners are a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and carry on business as (1) Clearing and Shipping Agents. (2) Insurance Agents (3) Godown Keepers and (4) Cotton Supervisors and Controllers. The petitioners have four different departments for the business carried on by them and these departments are -
(1) The Clearing and Shipping Department,
(2) The Insurance Department,
(3) The Godown Department, and
(4) The Cotton Supervising and Controlling Department.
On 15th November 1958 the petitioners gave notice of termination of employment to 14 clerks and two peons from their Clearing and Forwarding Departments and the Godown Department and after following the principle "last come first go" from the said respective departments, they retrenched as from the 15th November 1958, 14 clerks and two peons after paying these retrenched employees all their earned wages, leave wages, one month's pay in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation and also the bonus, which was due to them. The second respondent, which is a Trade Union of the Transport and Dock Workers, raised a dispute with regard to the retrenchment of these employees. The Conciliation in respect of this dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central Bombay, failed and failure report under S.12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made by that Authority to the Central Government on 7th February 1959. The Government of India thereafter on 28th February 1959 referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, under S.7(a) and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

3. In the statement of claim filed by the second respondent before the Tribunal, it was contended that the retrenchment was not justified and secondly the proper procedure according to law was not adopted by the petitioners in retrenching the employees. On these contentions the second respondent prayed that the petitioners be ordered to reinstate the employees with back wages from 15th November 1958 till they were reinstated and the petitioners should be further ordered to pay compensation for the period of their enforced unemployment. The petitioners in their written statement before the Tribunal contended that inasmuch as the Order of Reference included workmen in their employment other than those engaged in the Clearing and Shipping works at the docks, the Central Government had no jurisdiction and authority to make any order referring the industrial dispute to adjudication relating to the workmen other than those employed in the docks and, therefore, the Order of Reference was bad in law and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference. On merits it was contended that the retrenchment was justified and the proper procedure was followed in retrenching the employees.

4. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioners to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was negatived by the Tribunal. Although respondent No. 2 had contended that the retrenchment was not justified, that contention was given up before the Tribunal. The only dispute, therefore, which was canvassed before the Tribunal related to whether proper procedure had been followed by the petitioners in retrenching the employees. In this