9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suitable and even supply of yarn for its hosiery manufacture. A question arose in 1961 whether for the purposes of Section 11 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the hosiery and spinning sections of the Company's establishment were a single concern or two separate undertakings. It was the contention of the Company that the undertaking was one and not two. The Supreme Court accepted the finding of the Industrial Court that there were two distinct and independent undertakings. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in The Fine Knitting Company Limited v. The Industrial Court, Bombay 1962 Supp (3) SCR 196. Subsequently, on August 1, 1970, the Spinning unit was closed down. Thereafter, the management of the undertaking was taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Management) Ordinance, the spinning undertaking had become useless beyond redemption and as there was no chance of re-starting the undertaking with reasonable inputs the undertaking could not be considered to be a sick textile undertaking within the meaning of the definition in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act. 3. In support of his last submission that the spinning section had been completely closed with no hope of being revived, Shri Tarkunde invited our attention to the agreement entered into by the management with the workmen in 1972, the affidavits of the representatives of the management and the workmen, the cancellation of the licence by the Assistant Controller, the deletion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. No such permission was ever obtained. We are unable to accept the submission that the closure of the spinning section in August 1970 was intended to be a permanent closure. 4. Going back to the first two submissions of Shri Tarkunde, it is true that in the Fine Knitting Company Limited v. the Industrial Court, Bombay. it was held that the hosiery and the spinning department were distinct undertakings. But that was for the purposes of Section 11 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act under which two industrial activities carried on by one concern or company could be treated as two separate undertakings. In the present case, we have to reckon with the definitions of 'textile,' 'textile company' and 'textile undertaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three expressions together with the deeming provision, we see no escape from treating the hosiery section as included in the sick textile undertaking. It is an asset of the textile company in relations to the sick textile undertaking. It is also property which was in the ownership, possession, power and control of the textile company, 5. The next question is whether the circumstance that the hosiery section never stopped functioning is sufficient to hold that the textile undertaking had not remained closed for a period of not less than three months immediately before the appointed day. In the Fine Knitting Company Limited v. The Industrial Court, Bombay, this Court noticed that the spinning activity of the company had taken a place of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
