Amritsar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Another vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Others

N.k. Sodhi, J.—This order will dispose of four writ petitions all of which are directed against the award dated June 2, 1989 of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab whereby reference 19 of 1977 made to it u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) was partly decided in favour of the management and partly in favour of the wormen whereas the other two references were decided against the workmen. Civil Writ Petition 5400 of 1991 has been filed by the management and the same was admitted to a regular hearing. The workmen filed three Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court against the impugned award which have been transmitted to this Court to be treated as writ petitions and these are being disposed of along with Civil Writ Petition 5408 of 1991 in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court.

Amritsar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and it was carrying on several activities with its registered office at Amritsar in the State of Punjab. Amritsar Oil Works, Amritsar (hereinafter called the factory) was one of the factories of the company and it was engaged in the manufacture of vanaspati. Since the factory remained closed for a period exceeding three months, the Central Government in exercise of its powers u/s 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (to be called hereinafter as the 1951 Act) took over the management of the factory by a notification dated September 13, 1974 and appointed a Board of Management to run the same subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification. The Board was to hold office for a period of five years from the date of the notification and the constitution of the Board was also mentioned therein. The order taking over the factory was to have effect for a period of five years commencing from the date of its publication in the official gazette. After six days of the publication of the aforesaid notification the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 18-FB of the 1951 Act declared on September 19, 1974 that the enactments or portions thereof as specified in the Schedule to the order shall not apply to the factory. This order was to remain in force for a period of one year commencing from the date of its publication in the official gazette. The enactments referred to in the schedule were as under:-

(1) The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

(2) The following Chapters and Sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, namely:-

i) Chapter V A

ii) Section 33 Cp2 iii) Section 9A

It is common ground between the parties that even though the management of the factory was taken over by the Central Government on September 13, 1974 yet the Government of India started running the factory only with effect from December 1, 1974. Again it is not in dispute that the period for which it was taken over came to an end on September 13, 1979 and thereafter the period was being extended from time to time till October 19, 1982. The orders extending the period of take over were challenged by the company in a writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court which was allowed on September 3, 1982 and this decision is reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 337. The Parliament then stepped in and enacted the Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called the Acquisition Act) with effect from October 19, 1982. By virtue of Section 3 of the Acquisition Act the factory and the right, title and interest of the company in relation thereto stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government. u/s 5 of the Acquisition Act the Central Government had the option to direct that instead of the factory and the right, title and interest of the company in relation thereto continuing to vest in it shall vest in a Government company on a date to be notified by the Central Government not being a date earlier than October 19, 1982. The Central Government then by a notification dated April 23, 1984 issued u/s 5 of the Acquisition Act declared that the factory and the right, title and interest of the company in relation thereto shall vest in Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd., Amritsar which is a Government company.

On taking over the management of the factory on September 13, 1974 the Central Government discontinued with the services of some of the employees of the factory while the others continued in the employment of the company under the new management but they were given fresh employment. In other words, the services of all the employees were interrupted/put to an end on the date of taking over of the management and thereafter some of the employees were given fresh employment. The employees whose services were discontinued raised an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement with back wages. The names of these employees are mentioned in list ''a'' appended to reference 19 of 1977. The previous management had laid off a large number of its workmen with effect from April 23, 1973 and they too raised a dispute regarding the validity of lay off. The workmen who were given fresh employment also claimed that they should be given the benefit of their previous service rendered by them prior to the take over. The workmen also claimed bonus for the year 1971-72 to 1974-75 (four years). All these disputes were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab for adjudication and the reference was registered as reference 19 of 1977. The Workmen also claimed bonus for the year 1975-76 at the rate of 20% and this dispute as referred was registered as reference 8 of 1978. The company through its new management terminated the services of 39 workmen who contested the same alleging that their termination was not justified. In addition, two other workmen namely Kulwant Rai and Dalip Singh were also removed from service. The validity of their termination as also of the 39 workmen was referred to the Tribunal and disposed of by common award that has been impugned in the present petitions. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal it impleaded M/s Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd. as one of the respondents in referrence 19 of 1977. It may be recalled that the factory and the right, title and interest of the company in relation thereto had vested in this Government company by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government u/s 5 of the Acquisition Act. Thereafter on an application filed by the new management of the factory pleading that the liability, if any towards the workmen was that of the company as it pertained to the period prior to the take over, the Tribunal as per its order dated February 20, 1987 also impleaded the company as a respondent in reference 19 of 1977.

At this stage, it is necessary to notice the terms of the three references made by the State Government for adjudication to the Tribunal. Reference 19 of 1977.

1) Whether termination of services of workmen (as per list enclosed ''A'') is justified and in order? If not what relief/exact amount of compensation are they entitled?

2) Whether lay off of the workmen given in the enclosed list ''B'' by the management from April 23, 1973 to November 30, 1974 was justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are the workmen entitled?

3) Whether all the workmen are entitled to get credit of the pervious services rendered by them prior to the taking over by new management and whether service cards should be issued and leave cards be also corrected accordingly? If so, what directions are necessary in this behalf?

4) Whether alteration in the old service condition of all workmen with effect from December 1, 1974 was justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are the workmen entitled?

5) Whether the workmen are entitled to the grant of bonus for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75? If so, at what rate and with what details?

Reference 8 of 1978

1) Whether the workmen are entitled to the grant of bonus for the year 1975-76 @ 20%? If so, with what details?

Reference 23 of 1978

1) Whether the termination of services of the workman (list enclosed) is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are they entitled?

2) Whether termination of services of Sarvshri Kulwant Rai and Dalip Singh from July 30, 1977 is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are they entitled?

On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workmen were not entitled to any reinstatement as claimed by them in reference 19 of 1977 since the new management did not continue with their employment after taking over the management. According to the Tribunal the workmen were entitled only to compensation and that too from the company. It was further held that since the management had failed to place any material on the record to justify the lay off, the same was not justified and, therefore, the workmen who were laid off were entitled to their full wages during the period of lay off. The Tribunal held that since the factory was taken over by the Central Government on September 13, 1974 the lay off came to an end on this date. As the laid off workmen had received 50% wages as lay off compensation from the Commissioner of Payments appointed u/s 14 of the Acquisition Act for the period April 23, 1973 to September 13, 1974, the Tribunal directed that the remaining 50% would be paid to them by the company. As regards bonus, the Tribunal took the view that the factory was incurring losses and there being no evidence on the record to show whether there was any allocable surplus available to be disbursed as bonus for the period in dispute, the workmen were entitled to minimum bonus in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The company was thus, held liable for the payment of bonus at the rate of 4% for the years 1971-72 to 1973- 74 as the period in dispute was prior to the taking over. The Central Government was, however, held liable to pay bonus for the year 1974-75 at the time rate because during this period the factory had been taken over by it. Reference 19 of 1977 was, therefore, partly decided in favour of the managment and partly in favour of the workmen. As regards Reference 8 of 1978 the Tribunal found that the industrial undertaking did not earn any profit during the year 1975-76 and therefore, the workmen were not entitled to bonus at the rate of 20% as claimed by them. They were however, held entitled to minimum bonus at the rate of 4% which had been paid to them. Reference 8 of 1978 was, consequently decided against the workmen. While deciding Reference 23 of 1978 the Tribunal found that the concerned 41 workmen were employed in the tin plant of the factory which was temporarily closed down by the Central Government on July 6, 1977 and it never restarted thereafter with the result that the services of these workmen came to an end. The closure and the consequent termination were held justified. The workmen were thus held not entitled to closure compensation u/s 25-FFF because the provisions of Chapter V A which contains Section 25-FFF had been suspended by the Central Government u/s 18-FB of the 1951 Act. The reference was decided against the workmen. The company has challenged the award by filing Civil Writ Petition 5408 of 1991 in so far Reference 19 of 1977 has been partly decided in favour of the workmen and the workmen have filed the other three petitions challenging the findings of the Trubunal which have gone against them.

The first argument of Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Adovate on behalf of the company is that the Tribunal was in error in impleading the company as a party to the proceedings. He referred to the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Acquisition Act to contend that after the appointed day i.e. October 19, 1982 the proceedings pending before the Tribunal could continue only against the Central Government or against the Government company in which the factory came to be vested by virtue of an order passed u/s 5 of the Acquisition Act. There is no merit in this contention. It is true that u/s 4(6) of the Acquisition Act, the proceedings pending before the Tribunal were not to abate and were to continue against the Central Government which took over the factory on September 13, 1974 and even against the Government company in which the factory came to be vested by virtue of an order passed by the Central Government u/s 5 of the Acquisition Act but this provision does not take away from the Tribunal its power to summon any party which appears to it to be necessary for the final determination of the proceedings. It is well settled that u/s 18(3) of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to summon any party to appear before it and when that party appears such party is bound by the award rendered by the Tribunal. Since the case of the new managment of the factory was that the liability in regard to the workmen was that of the previous management i.e. the company, the Tribunal impleaded the latter as a party to the proceedings. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal and in the circumstances it was necessary to have the company before it.

It was then urged by Mr. Sehgal that by impleading the company as a party the Tribunal has enlarged the scope of the reference and directed the company to pay retrenchment compensation to the workmen in terms of Section 25-FF of the Act when such an issue had not been referred to it. He has drawn my attention to the provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act whereunder the Tribunal has to confine its adjudication to the points referred to it by the State Government and matters incident thereto but cannot decide any other issue. There is merit in this contention but for reasons recorded hereinafter I am not inclined to set aside the award on this account. It is true that what was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was as to whether the termination of the services of the workmen as per list ''A'' with the order of reference was justified and in order and it was only in the event of the Tribunal holding that the termination was not justified that it was called upon to determine the amount of compensation payable to the workmen. Since the management of the factory had been transferred from the company to the Central Government, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for the transferee (Central Government) to continue with employment of the workmen and that it was justified in giving fresh employment to some of the employees. For this reason, the termination of the services of the employees who were not continued in service was held to be justified. There was, therefore, no occasion for the Tribunal to determine the compensation payable to the workmen. The question that now arises is whether this finding of the Tribunal is correct in law. In my opinion it is. Whenever there is transfer of management of an undertaing, whether by agreement or by operation of law, the transferor in whose employment the workmen had put in continuous service for not less than one year is required to give notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-FF. However, the transferor is not liable to give notice and pay compensation if by reason of the transfer the services of the workmen remain uninterrupted and the transferee undertakes to count the previous service of the employees in the event of their retrenchment and employs them on terms and conditions which are not less favourable than those applicable to them immediately before the transfer. It is clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 25-FF that it is not obligatory for the transferee to continue with the employment of the workmen who had been engaged by the transferor and where the transferee does not continue with the service of the workmen or there is interruption in their employument by reason of transfer, the only effect is that the transferor becomes liable to give notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25FF of the Act. In the instant case the Central Government on taking over the management terminated the services of all the employees and gave fresh employment to some. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was right in holding that the termination of the services of the workmen by the Central Government was justified. In view of the transfer of management, the Tribunal found that in terms of Section 25FF of the Act the workmen were entitled to compensation which was payable by the transferor, namely the company. This finding too is correct in law but the grievance of Mr. Sehgal is that this issue had not been referred to the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have awarded any compensation to the workmen u/s 25-FF of the Act. It is correct that this was not referred and the Tribunal was not a Court of plenary jurisdiction and it had to confine itself to the terms of reference but in law the workmen were nevertheless entitled to the compensation u/s 25-FF of the Act because the management of the factory had been transferred and their service was interrupted. Even if the award was to be quashed on the ground that the Tribunal travelled beyond the terms of reference, the entitlement of the workmen to the compensation u/s 25-FF would still be there and it will be open to them to recover the same either in proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act or in any other appropriate proceedings. Since the matter herein has remained pending for so long, no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the award on this ground and requiring the workmen to have their entitlement/rights enforced in other proceedings when there is no doubt about their entitlement. With a view to avoid another bout of unnecessary litigation between the parties, I refrain from exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore, to set aside the award on this ground.

It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner in C.W.P. 5408 of 1991 that the remedy of the workmen for the satisfaction of their claims, if any, lay before the Commissioner of Payments who was appointed u/s 14 of the Acquisition Act and that some of them had even approached the said Commissioner and got some payments through him. The argument is that the remedy under the Act was barred as all the liabilities of the erstwhile management i.e. the company were to be met by the Commissioner of payments. He placed strong reliance on Hindustan Venus Table Oils Corporation Limited Chheharta, Amrisar v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1988 1 93 P.L.R. 330 in support of his contention. The doctrine of election was also pressed into service to contend that when workmen had once approached the Commissioner of Payments to receive 50 percent wages as lay off compensation from the Commissioner and they had chosen the remedy under the Acquisition Act they could not thereafter pursue the references before the Tribunal. Reference was also made to Section 21 of the Acquisition Act which has an over-riding effect and it was submitted that the Acquisition Act was a complete code by itself and being a special Act its provisions must prevail over the other enactments including the Act.

Before I deal with these contentions, it will be useful to reproduce some of the provisions of the Acquisition Act which have a bearing on the issued raised by Mr. Sehgal:- [Text of Sections 6, 7, 14, 16, 17 and 21 omitted. Editor].

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Sehgal, I find no merit in them. As soon as the services of the workmen were interrupted by reason of transfer of the management of the factory on November 13, 1974, the company became liable to pay to them compensation in terms of Section 25-FF. This liability having arisen prior to October 19, 1982, it had to be met by the company in terms of Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act. The mere fact that the award was given by the Tribunal after the appointed day is wholly immaterial. It has been made clear in Section 6 of the Acquisition Act that no liability other than the liability specified in Sub-section (2) thereof of the company in relation to the factory in respect of the period prior to the appointed day shall be enforceable against the Central Government or Government Company. Similarly, no award, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority in relation to the factory passed after the appointed day in respect of any claim or dispute in relation to any matter not being referred to in Sub-section (2) which arose before that day shall be enforced against the Central Government or the Government company. The argument that the workmen should have made their claims to the Commissioner of Payment u/s 17 of the Acquisition Act cannot be accepted because the claims envisaged by this provision are the ascertained amounts the liability in regard to which had been determined. The Parliament did not contemplate that the workmen would agitate their claims regarding their termination before the Commissioner under the Acquisition Act nor was the Commissioner expected to decide industrial disputes which could be decided only by the Tribunals and Labour Courts under the Act. It must, therefore, be held that the Acquisition Act did not provide another remedy to the workmen in regard to their grievances/claims which could only be agitated before the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter it is not correct to say that the workmen had two remedies and there was, therefore, no occasion for them to choose either of them. In Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation''s case(supra), the sales tax authorities had determined the liability of the company for the recovery of those amounts. This Court held that in view of the payment made by the Central Government to the Commissioner of Payments for meeting the liability of the company as referred to u/s 16 of the Acquisition Act, the liability in respect of the taxes had to be met by the Commissioner of Payments in priority to other unsecured debts in terms of Section 16(2) of the Acquisition Act. That is not the case here. In the present case, dispute of the workmen was pending when the Acquisition Act came into creation and the libility of the company was determined thereafter by the impugned award though it pertained to the period prior to the appointed day. This libility in terms of Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act will have to be met by the company.

Lastly, it was urged by Mr. Suveer Sehgal that the workmen were not entitled to any bonus for the year 1973-74 because they only worked for 22 days in that year and that they were laid off with effect from April 23, 1973. He referred to the provisions of Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act to contend that a workman who does not work for at least 30 days in a year is not entitled to any bonus in that year. Though this argument was not raised before the Tribunal, I permitted the counsel to raise the same before me as it did not involve any disputed question of fact. It is the admitted case of the parties that the workmen whose names appeared in list ''B'' appended with the order of reference were laid off with effect from April 23, 1973. According to the counsel they had worked for 22 days upto April 22, 1973 and the lay off continued till the factory was taken over by the Central Government on September 13, 1974. There is no merit in this contention either. The Tribunal has held that the lay off was not justified and the workmen were entitled to their full salary for the lay off period which came to an end by the taking over of the factory by the Central Government. They will, therefore, be deemed to have worked up to the date of taking over and if that be so it cannot be said that they worked for less than 30 days for the year 1973- 74. Moreover, all the workmen were not laid off. Similarly, for the year 1974-75, the workmen will be deemed to have worked up to the date of taking over and they will be deemed to have worked for more then 30 days in that year as well. The finding of the Tribunal that the workmen are entitled to bonus for the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 at the rate of 4 per cent is, therefore, assailable.

Now coming to the writ petitions filed by the workmen, it was strenuously urged on their behalf that at the time of take over of the factory u/s 18(AA) of the 1951 Act the services of the workmen were not terminated and that on the coming into force of the Acquisition Act the workmen were in the employment of the factory and, therefore, in terms of Section 12 of the Acquisition Act they became the employees of the Government of India. It is further submitted that when the unit came to be vested in Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation submitted the workmen became the employees of this Government company and were thus, entitled to claim their full salary and allowances from it. It was argued that with the taking over of the factory by the Government of India, the services of the workmen did not automatically come to an end and that Section 25-FF of the Act does not envisage automatic termination when the managment of a factory is transferred. It is contended that termination of services of the workmen amounted to retrenchment and, therefore, Section 25-F had to be complied with and this not having been done, the order of the Tribural has to be quashed. Strong reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in N.T.C. (South Maharashtra) Limited Vs. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Others, . I am not impressed with these arguments. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under at PP 958 -959:

"As regards the second contention which is based on the provisions of Section 25-FF of the ID Act, we are afraid that the same proceeds on a wrong presumption of the law. As is clear from the provisions of the said Section which are reproduced above, the Section by itself does not put an end to the contract of employment on the transfer of the ownership or management of the undertaking to the new employer. There is nothing in the said provisions to indicate such a consequence on the transfer of the undertaking. The Section only provides for compensation to the workmen if such transfer aliunde result in the termination of the contract of employment. Whether the transfer results in the termination of the contract of employment or not, will depend upon either on the terms of the agreement of transfer or on the provisions of the law which effects the transfer."

In the case before us, the Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that at the time of take over of the factory by the Board of Management on Septmeber 13, 1974 u/s 18(AA) of the 1951 Act, the factory under the Government of India managment actualy terminated the services of the employees and made fresh recruitment on the basis of applications for appointment made by the workmen. Some of them were given fresh appointment. The Tribunal has relied on the statment of Mr. V.K. Sethi, Deputy General Manager who appeared as MW8 and produced the applications Exhibits M-35 to M-238 on the record. The fact that the workmen were not allowed to continue in service by the new management has also been admitted by some of the workmen who appeared as WW10, WW11 and WW24. This finding of fact based as it is on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings. In the light of this finding, it has to be held that the transfer of the undertaking on Septmeber 13, 1974 brought about termination of services of the workmen. This being so, one fails to understand how the provisions of Section 25-FF of the Act are not attracted. Where Section 25-FF is applicable, it cannot be said that termination of the services of the workmen is in any way illegal. As already observed, they are entitled to only compensation from the company which the Tribunal has awarded. Termination of service having been brought about as a consequence of the transfer of management the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are clearly inapplicable and, therefore, the award of the Tribunal in this regard must be upheld.

It was then contended that the management of the factory was ''taken over'' by the Government of India on September 13, 1974 and that it was not a case of transfer so as to attract the provisions of Section 25-FF of the Act. Reference was made to Black''s Law Dictionary to point out the distinction between ''taken over'' and "transfer''. This contention is equally devoid of merit. In the context of Section 18(AA) of the 1951 Act read with Section 25-FF of the Act, it is clear that taking over the management of an industrial under taking amounts to transfer of its management within the meaning of Section 25-FF of the Act and it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 25-FF are not attracted. Moreover, the parties contested the references before the Tribunal on the assumption that the managment of the undertaking, that is, the factory had been transferred by-the company to the Government of India by operation of law on the issuance of the notification u/s 18(AA) of the 1951 Act on September 13, 1974.

The next argument of Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the workmen is that in view of the past experience of the employees, the Tribunal should have gone into the merits of the dispute and held that they were entitled to the benefit of their past service and also to the continuity of their service. He cited some case law to show that when transfer of management takes place continuity of service is usually maintained. It may be so, but it is for the transferee to decide in the circumstances of each case at the time of take over as to whether it is going to maintain the continuity of service of the employees that are being taken over and whether it is going to employ any of the past employees. In the present case, the factory was lying closed because the company was not able to manage its affairs properly and it was for that reason that the Government exercised its powers u/s 18(AA) of the 1951 Act to take over its management. In the very nature of things, the underlying object of taking over the factory was to restart the same and with that object in view in must have pruned the employees and given fresh employment to those found fit for doing their job. These are matters for the management to decide subject, of course, to the final decision by industrial adjudication. The Tribunal having upheld the action of the management, I find no justification in interfering with that order in the presentproceedings.

As regards the claim of the workmen in Reference No. 8 of 1978, the Tribunal held that the workmen were entitled to bonus for the year 1975-76 at the minimum rate of 4 per cent which had already been paid to them by the management. Learned counsel for the workmen could not advance any meaningful argument to challenge the findings recorded by the Tribunal. This part of the award is thus upheld.

We are now left with Reference No. 24 of 1978 relating to the validity of termination of services of workmen including Shri Kulwant Rai and Dalip Singh. The case of the management is that these workmen were employed in the Tin Plant of the Factory which was temporarily closed on July 6, 1977 and thereafter finally closed on August 3, 1979. The workmen disputed the factum of closure and both parties led their evidence. After considering the evidence on the record, the Tribunal took the view that the Tin Plant of the factory had closed and in this regard reliance was placed on the statement of Mr. V.K. Sethi, Deputy General Manager (MM8) who stated that the Tin Plant was closed on July 6, 1977 as alleged by the management. He produced on record the closure notice Exhibit M-299. The fact that the Tin Plant was actually closed has been admitted by some of the workmen as well. Since Chapter V A of the Act which includes Section 25-FFF of the Act was specifically declared to be inapplicable to the factory after its take over, the Tribunal held that the workmen were not entitled to any closure compenation though the factory had been closed and, therefore, their services automatically came to an end which termination was held to be justified. Mr. Verma made strenuous efforts to challenge the findings of the Tribunal regarding closure of the Tin Plant and took me through the statements of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the workmen. Having perused the impugned award and the statements on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, I find no justification to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal which are based on the evidence of the parties. This being so, the termination of the services of 41 workmen covered by Reference No. 23 of 1978 has to be upheld.

In the result, there is no merit in any of the four writ petitions which stand dismissed with no order as to costs.