Can a minority union give notice to end an award under Section 19(6)?

Yes. A group of workmen acting together can issue such notice even if it represents a minority of those bound by the award.

Why were factory workers denied lay-off compensation?

Because the strike was in another part of the same establishment (the quarry), Section 25E(iii) barred compensation.

How did the Court decide the ‘same establishment’ question?

It found unity of ownership, management, control, employment, functional links, and close distance between quarry and factory.

Do separate Standing Orders or Mines Act coverage split establishments?

No. Those differences did not outweigh the strong managerial and functional unity in this case.

What practical lessons come from this case?

Minority unions can end awards; and for lay-off claims, first test if units form one establishment before applying Section 25C.

Associated Cement Companies v. Their Workmen (AIR 1960 SC 777)

Quick Summary

Two key takeaways. First, a minority union can give a Section 19(6) notice to end an award—collective action by any group of workmen is enough. Second, the factory and quarry of ACC were one establishment. Because the lay-off flowed from a strike in another part of the same establishment, Section 25E(iii) barred lay-off compensation.

Issues

Can a trade union representing a minority of workmen validly issue a Section 19(6) notice to terminate an award?
Were the quarry and the cement factory one “establishment” so that Section 25E(iii) disqualified lay-off compensation?

Rules

Section 19(6): A notice to end an award may be given by a group of workmen acting together—even if they are not the majority.
Section 25E(iii): No lay-off compensation if the lay-off is due to a strike in another part of the same establishment.
Single-establishment test: Look for unity of ownership, management, control, employment, functional integrality, and proximity.

Facts (Timeline)

Operations: ACC ran a Chaibasa factory and a Rajanka quarry (~1.5 miles away) under unified management.

Demands & strike: Quarry workers’ demands rejected → strike notice (Feb 18, 1955) → strike from Mar 1 to Jul 4, 1955.

Impact: Limestone supply stopped → factory partly shut → factory workers laid off (from Apr 1, 1955).

Claim: Factory workers sought lay-off compensation under Section 25C.

Company stand: Section 25E(iii)the same establishment (quarry) → disqualification.

Tribunal: Treated quarry and factory as separate → awarded compensation. ACC appealed.

Arguments

Employer (ACC)

Quarry & factory are one establishment—tight managerial and functional links.

Hence Section 25E(iii) bars lay-off compensation.

Section 19(6): any collective group of workmen may issue notice; majority not required.

Workmen

Separate Standing Orders/Mines Act coverage show distinct units.

Factory staff did not strike; they should not lose compensation.

Notice to end award should reflect the majority view (disputed).

Judgment

Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court held that the factory and quarry were one establishment—there was unity of ownership, management, control, employment, strong functional integrality, and geographical closeness.

Because the lay-off arose from a strike in another part of the same establishment, Section 25E(iii) disqualified compensation.

On Section 19(6), a notice to end an award may be issued by a group of workmen acting collectively, even if a minority.

Ratio Decidendi

A group of workmen—even a minority—can validly end an award under Section 19(6). Quarry and factory formed one establishment; therefore, a strike in one part barred lay-off compensation under Section 25E(iii).

Why It Matters

Confirms collective agency is not limited to majority unions for award termination.

Gives a workable test for “single establishment,” key for lay-off compensation disputes.

Warns that inter-unit strikes can affect compensation if units are functionally one.

Key Takeaways

Point Quick Note

Minority notice valid Section 19(6) allows a group of workmen to end an award; majority not required.

Single establishment Unity + functional integrality + proximity may merge units into one.

Lay-off bar Section 25E(iii) denies compensation if the cause is a strike elsewhere in the same establishment.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “MINOR GROUP, MAJOR EFFECT; ONE UNIT, NO LAY-OFF CHEQUE.”

Who acts? Any group of workmen can send 19(6) notice.

What is it? Are linked units really one establishment?

Then apply: If yes and strike caused lay-off → 25E(iii) bars compensation.

IRAC Outline

Issue: (1) Can a minority union end an award? (2) Are quarry and factory one establishment for 25E(iii)?

Rule: (1) Yes—group action under 19(6). (2) Unity & functional links = single establishment; strike there bars compensation.

Application: ACC showed unified control and integrality; strike at quarry led to factory lay-off → 25E(iii) applies.

Conclusion: Minority notice valid; lay-off pay denied due to same-establishment strike.

Glossary

Section 19(6)

Allows a party (including a group of workmen) to give notice to terminate an award.

Functional Integrality

Close, necessary interdependence of units so they operate as one system.

Section 25E(iii)

Disqualifies lay-off compensation if lay-off is due to a strike in another part of the same establishment.

FAQs

No. Any collective group of workmen can issue the notice to terminate the award.

Because the strike that caused the lay-off was in another part of the same establishment (quarry), activating Section 25E(iii).

Not by themselves. The Court looks at overall unity and functional links.

Common ownership, centralized control, integrated employment, tight production link (quarry feeds factory), and close distance.

Related Cases

Single Establishment Line

Decisions applying unity & functional integrality to factories, depots, and mines.

Section 19(6) Notices

Cases clarifying who may validly terminate an award and how notices operate.

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES V. THEIR WORKMEN (AIR 1960 SC 777)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS Section 19(6) notice; minority union; Section 25E(iii); lay-off compensation; single establishment

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS functional integrality; Standing Orders; quarry strike; Chaibasa factory; Industrial Tribunal

PUBLISH_DATE 23 Oct 2025

AUTHOR_NAME Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION India

Slug associated-cement-companies-v-their-workmen-air-1960-sc-777

Reviewed by The Law Easy

Labour Law Trade Union Industrial Relations

Point	Quick Note
Minority notice valid	Section 19(6) allows a group of workmen to end an award; majority not required.
Single establishment	Unity + functional integrality + proximity may merge units into one.
Lay-off bar	Section 25E(iii) denies compensation if the cause is a strike elsewhere in the same establishment.

CASE_TITLE	ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES V. THEIR WORKMEN (AIR 1960 SC 777)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS	Section 19(6) notice; minority union; Section 25E(iii); lay-off compensation; single establishment
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS	functional integrality; Standing Orders; quarry strike; Chaibasa factory; Industrial Tribunal
PUBLISH_DATE	23 Oct 2025
AUTHOR_NAME	Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION	India
Slug	associated-cement-companies-v-their-workmen-air-1960-sc-777

Jump to

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Quick Info

Court: Supreme Court of India

Year: 1960

Citation: AIR 1960 SC 777

Focus: 19(6) notice & 25E(iii)

SEO Snippets
Section 19(6) Minority union Section 25E(iii) Single establishment