SUPREME COURT (Mitter, J.; bench with Chief Justice K. N. Wanchoo) — Civil Appeal Nos. 1078 & 1079 of 1965 and No. 9 of 1966, decided 4 May 1967, disposing of appeals by special leave against the award dated 31 July 1963 of the Special Industrial Tribunal, Madras in Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1962. Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. sold the proprietary rights of its Telugu daily and weekly (Andhra Prabha) to the newly formed Andhra Prabha (P) Ltd., Vijayawada, agreeing (agreement of 22 April 1959, Clauses 11–12) to absorb all employees connected with the two publications without interruption of service or less favourable terms; after a strike begun 4.30 p.m. on 27 April 1959, the Management published a closure notice in the Hindu on 29 April 1959 closing the undertaking and publication of all seven Madras newspapers and dispensing with the workmen and working journalists (wages, one month's salary in lieu of notice under s. 25F, and Act compensation of about Rs. 7 lakhs paid). Tribunal had held: no verbal assurance by Goenka against shifting publication to Vijayawada; strike unwarranted; suspension of business a lock-out at inception (29 April 1959) becoming a genuine closure only by end October 1959. Supreme Court HELD: there was a genuine closure even on 29 April 1959; the scheme of dispersal was not mala fide; even without the strike a closure would have followed to give effect to the scheme, the strike merely precipitating matters; things must be judged by what was done, not what could have been done (off-set press factor rejected). The new company, an independent legal entity, could not be called a daughter company or benamidar of the older organisation merely because the same chairman-family could guide the destinies of both; retention of a reporter among the staff guarding the property, failure to notify the competent authority under the Employees' Provident Fund Act of the termination of 700 workmen, and use of the paid-up teleprinter service till end October 1959 did not show the business was kept going. Strike not justified; Management entitled to close on 29 April 1959. Framework of ss. 25F, 25FF and 25FFF, Industrial Disputes Act noted; earlier precedents (Kays Construction Co. v. Its Workers, [1958] 2 LLJ 660; Workmen v. Dahingeapar Tea Estate, [1958] 2 LLJ 498) explained as predating those provisions. Application for additional evidence rejected — post-award conduct after a break of over four years irrelevant to the genuineness of the closure. Companies' appeals allowed, finding on the second issue and award set aside; workmen's appeal (No. 9 of 1966) dismissed; no order as to costs.
