for the respondents on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Chiabasa Cement Works, Jhinkpani Vs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1960 SC 56, Kalinga Tubes Limited Vs. Their Workmen, reported in F.J.R. 1968 Vol. 34 393; and Tatanagar Foundry Company Limited Vs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1960, to throw some light on the question raised for consideration. In The Associated Cement case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question of unity or oneness presents difficulties when the industrial establishment consists of parts, units, departments, branches, etc. If it is strictly unitary in the sense of having one location and one unit only, there is little difficulty in saying that it is one establishment. Where, however, the industrial undertaking has parts, branches, departments, units, etc. with different locations near or distant, the question arises as to what tests should be applied for determining what constitutes 'one establishment'. It has also been held that how the relationship between the units will be judged must depend on the facts proved, having regard to the scheme and object of the statute which gives the right of unemployment compensation and also prescribes a disqualification therefor. Admittedly, in the present case there were two units, one at Bengaluru and the other at Tumakuru. Whether there was unity or oneness or
