Summary
A union challenged closure of a manufacturing unit on the footing that Chapter VB applied because it employed over one hundred workers. The Court upheld the finding of ninety-nine workers, but awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000 each to workers who had not accepted the company’s earlier compensation.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established the workforce threshold for Chapter VB at the 1990 closure and what relief was due to workers who remained unpaid.
Held
- Workforce strength is factual, while drawing legal status as a workman from proved facts may involve mixed law and fact. The High Court’s finding was supported by the record: the union had not cogently established workman status for sixteen disputed employees. (¶ 17–29)
- Supervisory interference is permissible where a subordinate court ignores material evidence or records a finding without evidence. The Industrial Court had grouped the disputed employees without individually examining their status; the High Court’s correction was justified here. (¶¶ 27, 30–33)
- With ninety-nine workers, the Chapter VB requirements invoked for this historical closure were inapplicable. (¶ 34)
- The lump-sum award was confined to those who had not accepted earlier compensation; workers who had already settled were excluded. Payment through the Industrial Court required verification, including of representatives where a worker was unavailable. (¶ 38–44)
Result
Appeal disposed of while upholding the workforce finding. Company to deposit Rs.2,50,000 for each eligible unpaid worker with the Industrial Court, Pune; verification and payment formalities to be completed within three months.