Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. This claim of the petitioner is opposed by the second respondent-management on the ground that the printing of the medical journals and the editorial and publication work connected therewith are carried on by the two partners on behalf of the firm as two independent and separate establishments, that separate accounts are maintained and separate balance-sheet and profit and loss account have been drawn up, each year, that there is no functional integration of the two establishments and that, in fact, the publication of two magazines have been recognised as separate establishments by various authorities including the incometax authorities. It is also the case of the second respondent that the workers in the printing press at No. 10, Thambu Chetty Street, G.T., Madras-1, and the employees of the publication department at No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G.T., Madras have all along been represented by two separate units, that separate and independent settlements have been entered into by the management with the workers in the printing press and the employees in the office establishment, that the pay scales are different in the two establishments and that therefore the two establishments have to be treated independent of each other.

4. In the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the reasons given for treating the two establishments as separate and independent units are these:

1. The press and the office are located in different premises and are registered under different enactments;
2. There are two separate unions for the press and the office workers;
3. The unity of finance, management and functional integrality between the two units would not attract the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952;
4. The primary activity of the second respondent is the publication of medical journals viz., ' Antiseptic ' and ' Health ' and not mere printing; and
5. The office carried on in premises No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G.T., Madras, is not an adjunct of the printing press carried on in premises No. 10, Thambu Chetty Street, G.T., Madras-1.

5. From the above reasoning given by the first respondent it is clear that there is unity of finance management and functional integrality between the two units as alleged by the petitioner. Even otherwise the facts set out above will make it abundantly clear that the financial, managerial and functional integrality between the two units cannot at all be disputed. The second respondent is managing both the printing press as well as the editorial and publication work relating to the medical journals. The maintenance of the press as well as the office establishment is from out of the subscription and the advertisement revenue from the publication of the two medical journals; and the printing press cannot be carried without the office establishment and vice versa. This will clearly establish the financial, managerial and functional integrality between the two units. The first respondent has taken the view in the impugned order that even though there is financial, managerial and functional integrality between the two units, they cannot be treated as a single unit in view of the fact that both are located in different premises which are not adjunct and registered under different enactments and that there are two separate unions for the press and the office. Therefore, the question is whether the location of the two units in two different premises and its registration under two different enactments will make them the two separate and independent units as has been held by the first respondent.

9. In A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen , the Supreme Court had to consider a question whether a company owning a cement factory and a lime stone quarry at two different places could be treated as one unit for the purpose of Section 25-E of the Industrial Disputes Act. After expressing the view that whether a particular unit is a part of another establishment is a pure question of fact, the Supreme Court proceeded to say that the raw materials for the cement factory were supplied by the lime stone quarry owned by the same management though situate about a mile and a half from the factory, that the management was maintaining one common account and were looked after by one manager and that the members of the staff were also transferred from quarry to the factory and nice versa according to exigencies, that there was general unity of purpose and functional integrality between the limestone quarry and the factory and therefore it should be treated as one establishment for the purpose of Section 25-E(iii) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the Supreme Court the tests which are normally to be applied to decide as to what constitute one establishment would be unity of ownership, management, supervision and control, unity of finance and employment, unity of labour and conditions of service of workmen, functional integrality, general unity of purpose and geographical proximity. The Supreme Court also pointed out that no particular test can be adopted as an absolute and invariable test, that indeed in a large number of cases, several tests may fall for consideration at the same time, and that the test to be adopted to determine the true relationship between the two units should depend or the facts of each case.