Judgment : This petition is directed against the common award dated 29. 1992 made by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D.No.813 to 827/1989 by which the nonemployment of respondents 3 to 17 by the petitioner was held to be not justified and the employer was directed to reinstate them with continuity of service and backwages. .2. The case of the respondent-workmen before the Labour Court was that they had been employed by respondent No.2 Tiam House Services Limited and were later transferred to the petitioner company Cholamandalam Software Limited; that to the shock and surprise of the workmen, the management resorted to illegal lock out from 4. 1989 and thereafter sent a letter captioned as cessation of employment letter, and that such cessation of employment was in fact, the termination of the services of the workmen in an i llegal manner. It was also alleged that persons junior to these workmen have been retained ignoring the principle of ‘last come first go’ and that the termination was without reasonable cause. 3. The petitioner in answer to the claims so made filed a counter statement in which it was not denied that the respondent workmen had earlier been employed by respondent 2 herein. Petitioner has stated that these workmen with their consent were absorbed in the services of the petitioner company and that the petitioner had agreed to protect their past services under respondent 2. 4. The petitioner company, it was stated, was formed in the year 1982 with the object of rendering computer services to its customers relating to collection and maintenance of information and to develop computer software application to suit the special requirements of the customers; that in March 1983, the petitioner set up a data processing division which undertook data processing services such as preparation of pay rolls, and preparation of financial accounting and inventory control related statements; that subsequently there was a sharp decline in demand for the services of the data processing division of the petitioner due to the easier availability of indigenously manufactured computers and that by the year 1989, the division became unviable and the petitioner was forced to close down the data processing operations. It was further stated by the petitioner that as on 1. It was further stated by the petitioner that as on 1. 1989, 46 persons were employed in the data processing division and that on that day all these workmen were informed of the decision to close down the data processing operations. On 30.1.1989 notice under Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act was sent to the State Government intimating the Government that the data processing Operations would be closed with effect from 4. 1989. .5. The Petitioner also averted that on 4. 89, the services of the workmen of the data processing unit were terminated consequent to the closure of the data processing operations and that by October 1989, the software division of the petitioner was also closed. It was asserted that the company was not carrying on any activity as on the date it filed the statement is as on 112. 89 and that prior to the said date the services of all 71 of its employees had been terminated, after paying them closure compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The second respondent in its statement denied any liability on the ground that the workmen had cased to be its employees long prior to the cessation of their employment under the petitioner by virtue of their resignation and that therefore, it was not answerable for the claims of the petititoner. 7. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced before it by the parties, rejected the contention putforth by the petitioner in oral argument that the petitioner was not a factory. It held taht the petitioner employed more than 100 persons at the time the service of the workmen were terminated and was therefore, required to comply with the provision of the Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. As the prior permission of the Government had not been obtained as required under Section 25 (O) of the Act, the action of the petitioner in closing down the establishment was held to be unjustified. It was also observed by the Labout Court that the establishmen of the petitioner and that of the second respondent are inter connected, belonging as they did, to the same group of compainses. 8. Mr. It was also observed by the Labout Court that the establishmen of the petitioner and that of the second respondent are inter connected, belonging as they did, to the same group of compainses. 8. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner attacked this Award principally on theree grounds:- The first submission was that the whole of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is in-applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner is not an ‘Industrial Establishment’, as defined in 25L of the Act, the petitioner not being a ‘factory’ by virtue of Explanation II in to Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. The petitioner having conformed tothe requirements of the applicable provisions namely 25FF and 25FFA and having paid the amounts, which it was required to pay the workmen in accordance with Sec tion 25FF the petitioner had no further liability towards the workmen. The second submission was that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner had employed more than 100 persons incontrary to the evidence on record and is perverse. The last submission was that the nature of the relief granted by the Labour Court is wholly unpragmatic and impossible of compliance as the petitioner company has closed down its computer Data processing division as also the software divisions. Even if the termination is regarded as unjustified, the relief could only be by way of compensation in monetary terms. 9. If the petitioner is not an ‘Industrial Establishment’ as it is a defined in Section 25L of the Act, the whole basis on which the Award is made, would become unsustainable. 10. It was submitted for the petitioner, that the workmen in the claim of the Statements had not specifically referred to Chapter V-B of the Act, and therefore, the respondent could not deal with the applicability or otherwise of the provisions contained in Chapter V-B in its counter statement. Counsel contended that it was incumbent on the workmen to specifically state the reasons as to why the termination was not justified, and if noncompliance with Chapter V-B was a ground then the same ought to have been stated in the claim petition. 11. In answer to this, Mr. Counsel contended that it was incumbent on the workmen to specifically state the reasons as to why the termination was not justified, and if noncompliance with Chapter V-B was a ground then the same ought to have been stated in the claim petition. 11. In answer to this, Mr. T. Fenn Walter, learned counsel for the respondent-workmen submitted that the industrial disputes having been raised by individual workman under Section 2A of the Act, the issue as to whether the termination was justified would cover every possible ground on which the termination can be held to be not justified. The petitioner’s justification for the termination being alleged closure, it was the duty of the petitioner to have explained as to how that closure was in accordance wit h the provisions of the Act. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the ground on which the termination is being attacked should be set out as far as possible with reasonable precision in the claim statement so that the employer is made aware of the case be is required to meet. However, in matters relating to industrial adjudication, it would not be just or equitable to expect the workmen to make their claims with the same degree of precision expected of a plaintiff in an action in the Civil Court. In industrial application, the background in which the dispute is raised is normally well known to both parties. The employer who has the requisite information relating to the employment of the workmen, under it, is also aware of the legal frame work within which it has taken action and it is for the employer to justify its action and it is for the employer to justify its action and demonstrate that the action taken is not violative of the applicable provisions of law. 13. The petitioner had taken the stand in its counter statement filed before the Labour Court that the cessation of employment was due to closure. The petitioner was aware of the legal provisions governing closure. I am therefore unable to agree with the submission that by reason of the workmen not having referred to Chapter VB of the Act in the claim statement, the employer was prejudiced in its defence. 14. The petitioner was aware of the legal provisions governing closure. I am therefore unable to agree with the submission that by reason of the workmen not having referred to Chapter VB of the Act in the claim statement, the employer was prejudiced in its defence. 14. There is however no difficulty in examining the contention of the petitioner that it is not an industrial establishment as defined in Section 25 L of the Act, on the basis of proved or admitted facts on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was carrying on business of computer data processing and had two divisions - computer data processing division and soft ware devlopment divisions. The workmen concerned in this disupte were the employees of the computer data processing division. It is also not in dispute that the employer was not carryhing on any other activity which can be regarded as a manufacturing process. 15. Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act in Chapter VB read as follows:-“25L: Definitions:- For the purpose of this Chapter: .(a) “Industrial establishment” means .(i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948); .(ii) a mine as defined in clause (j) of sub section (1) of Section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952); or (iii) a planatation as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951); .(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 2: .(i) In relation to any company in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or .(ii) in relation to any Corporation (not being a Corporation referred to in sub clause (i) of clause (a) off Section (2) established by or under any law made by Parliament. The Central Government shall be the appropriate Government”. The petitioner admittedly does not fall within sub clause (ii) or (iii) of Section 25L(a) as admittedly, it is neither a mine nor a plantation. It can only be covered by sub clause (i) it if is factory, as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. The Central Government shall be the appropriate Government”. The petitioner admittedly does not fall within sub clause (ii) or (iii) of Section 25L(a) as admittedly, it is neither a mine nor a plantation. It can only be covered by sub clause (i) it if is factory, as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. Section 2(m) of the Factories Act reads as follows: “Factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof: .(i) wherein ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on or .(ii) where on twenty or more workers are working or were working on any day of the preceeding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process in being carried on without the aid of power, if ordinarily so carried on; but does not include a mine subject to the operation of Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), or (a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the Union, a railway running shed or a hotel, restaturant or eating place); (Explanation 1: — For computing the number of workers for the purpose of this clause all the workers in (different groups and relays) in a day shall be taken into account;) (Explanation II: — For the purposes of this clause, the mere fact that an electronic data processing unit or a computer unit is installed in any premises or part thereof, shall not be construed to make it a factory if no manufacturing process is being carried on in such premises or part thereof). 16. Relying on Explanation II which was inserted by Act 20 of 1987, with effect from first December 1987, petitioner contends that it is not a “factory” as it was not carrying on any manufacturing process apart from the use of the electronic data processing or computer units installed in its premises. Counsel submitted that though petitioner had obtained factory licence prior to the introduction of the Explanation II, after that Explanation was introduced, the petitioner could no longer be regarded as fact ory. The authorities it is said, also accepted this position and the petitioner did not renew its licence after the introduction of Explanation II. 17. Counsel submitted that though petitioner had obtained factory licence prior to the introduction of the Explanation II, after that Explanation was introduced, the petitioner could no longer be regarded as fact ory. The authorities it is said, also accepted this position and the petitioner did not renew its licence after the introduction of Explanation II. 17. Clause (i) as also clause (ii) or Section 2(k) and Explanation II refer to manufacturing process. Manufacturing process is defined in Section 2k of the Factories Act as follows: “manufacturing process” means any process for: — .(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breading up, demolishing or otherwise treating or deputing any article or substance with a view to its use, sale transport, delivery or disposal or .(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or (iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or .(iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure, or other similar process or binding; or .(v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels, (or) .(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage. 18. Counsel sought to raise the larger issue as to whether electronic data processing can at all be regarded as a manufacturing process. According to him, the article or substance must necessarily be three dimensional, and processing data within the computer and the printing of the results of the analysis in suitable format cannot be regarded as an “article” or “substance”. That question had not been raised nor was any evidence led on such an issue before the Labour Court. The petitioner had not at any tim e in the past raised such a contention and had in fact obtained a factory licence, thereby accepting the position, at least prima facie , that electronic data processing did amount to a manufacturing process. 19. The factory licence of the petitioner has been marked as Ex.M.41. It shows that the licence had been renewed in November 1986 for a period of one year form 312. 1987 and was further renewed in November 1987 for another period of one year till 312. 1988. The renewal made in November 1987 was prior to the date of coming into the effect of the Act 20 of 1987 namely on 12. 1987. 1987 and was further renewed in November 1987 for another period of one year till 312. 1988. The renewal made in November 1987 was prior to the date of coming into the effect of the Act 20 of 1987 namely on 12. 1987. The fact that the petitioner had a factory licence earlier and that the same had been renewed periodically prior to the amendment of the Act, cannot have the effect of depriving the petitioner of the benefits of the amended provision which took effect after the renewal. .20. The position of electronic data processing units vis-a-vis the factories Act under went a drastic change after the amending Act 20 of 1987 came into force. Explanation II added by that amending Act is clearly intended to exclude premises on which electronic data processing or computer units are installed and wherein no other manufacturing process is being carried on from the scope of the definition of Factory. 21. Explanation II in Section 2(m) has to be construed reasonably. The legislative intention of excluding electronic data processing units or computer units, when such units are located in a premises were no manufacturing process is carried on, cannot be effectuated if it were to be held that a manufacturing process is involved in the use of such computer units and therefore, the premises wherein such units is installed is a factory. The reference to “manufacturing process” in this Explanation must necessa rily be construed as referring to manufacturing process other than the use of the computer units. The explanation cannot also be confined in its application to a premises wherein the computer unit is merely installed. Such installation can only before use and not for storage. 22. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent that Explanation II to Section 2(m) of Factories Act could come into play only if the computer unit referred to therein was installed in the premises by the employer for captive use, and that the Explanation would have no application to cases where the computer unit is used for the purpose of rendering service to customers for a price. It is not possible to limit the application of Explanation II in the manner suggested. 23. The Explanation does not refer to the nature, extent or purpose for which the unit is used. It is not possible to limit the application of Explanation II in the manner suggested. 23. The Explanation does not refer to the nature, extent or purpose for which the unit is used. The only condition to be fulfilled for availing the benefit of the Explanation II is that the computer unit should not have been installed in a premises where a manufacturing process is being carried on. A premises wherein a manufacturing process is being carried on does not cease to be a factory by reason of the computer unit having been installed in such premises. A computer unit installed for captive use in such premises would thus not to be covered by the Explanation. The fact that the computer unit installed in a premises wherein no other manufacturing process is being carried on is used for a commercial purpose does not render Explanation II in Section 2(m) inapplicable to such an unit. 24. As admittedly the petitioner was not carrying on any other manufacturing press in the premises wherein the petitioner had its electronic data processing unit, and the electronic data processing units even if regarded as involving manufacturing process, having been specifically excluded form the definition of “factory” when such units are installed in a premises where no other manufacturing process is taking place, the petitioner-establishment ceased to be a factory, within the meaning of Section 2(m) o f the Factories Act with effect form 12. 1987. 25. As provided under Section 25K of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions contained in Chapter V B can only apply to Industrial Establishments in which not less that 100 persons were working on any day of the preceding twelve months. Industrial establishment for the purpose of Section 25K and Chapter V-B is industrial establishment, as defined in Section 25L. The provision contained in 25(O) with respect to closure of undertakings are applicable only to industrial establishment to which Chapter V-B applies. 26. After the undertaking of the petitioner had ceased to be a factory, it could no longer be regarded as an industrial establishment for purpose of Section 25 L of the Act, even though it continued to be an “industry” as it is defined in Section 2(j) of the Act and even if it had employed 100 or more workmen. Consequently, the whole of Chapter V-B of the Act was inapplicable to the petitioner on and after 12. Consequently, the whole of Chapter V-B of the Act was inapplicable to the petitioner on and after 12. 1987. 27. The labour Court has held that the petitioner establishment is a factory as the petitioner had been preparing pay rolls and other particulars, data processing soft ware and printed forms to its customers for a price on commercial basis. The processing of data and preparation of soft ware was regarded by the Labour Court as a manufacturing process. The Labour Court however did not advert to Explanation II to Section 2(m) of the Factories Act and did not consider the effect of that provision before holding that petitioner is a factory as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act. The finding so recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. .28. The fact that the petitioner had in fact closed its operations after complying with Section 25 FF and Section 25FFA is not in dispute. The Award has been made against the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner had failed to comply with Section 25(O). Once it is held that the petitioner had no obligation to comply with Section 25 (O) the impugned award has necessarily to be set aside. 29. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner had employed over 100 workmen. The petitioner has assailed that finding contending that the evidence before the Court was not properly appreciated by the Court. The Labour Court examined this question elabroately with reference to the documents produced by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any material document was not considered by the Labour Court. 30. The Labour Court examined the register of daily workers maintained by the petitoner establishment which contained the names of 130 employees. It noticed that in several places, there was over writing. It also noticed that though it was noted that 35 persons had resigned, the date of resignation was not entered, and the note regarding the resignation appeared to have been written on one and the same date in ths same ink. Though the employee’s witness M.W.1 stated that the employer had in its custody all the resignation letters and the same could be produced, such letters in fact were not produced. The Labour Court therefore rightly concluded that Ex. M1 could not be relied on to hold that the number of employees was less than 100. Though the employee’s witness M.W.1 stated that the employer had in its custody all the resignation letters and the same could be produced, such letters in fact were not produced. The Labour Court therefore rightly concluded that Ex. M1 could not be relied on to hold that the number of employees was less than 100. It has also observed that the alteration contained in M.1 must have been effected before filing of the document into court. .31. The Labour Court also noticed numerous discrepancies - it noted that while employer claimed that on 71 persons had been employed by it, at the time of closure, Ex. M1 showed that even after excluding those shown to have resigned, atleast 94 workmen were employed. In Ex. M2 employees” register, 123 names were found of whom 9 were said to have resigned. That register also had overwritings and alterations. Ex.M.58 employee”s list - another document relied on by the employer - was prepared on 12. 1990 an d that would show that 79 persons were employed for the month of March 1989. In the letter dated 7. 1988 sent by the employer to the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, it was state in the annexure that the strengh of the workers was 99 comprising 77 men and 22 women. M.W.2 stateed in his deposition that apart from the perons whose names are noted in the registers, a few cousal workers may also be there. He was not in a position to specify the number of such casual workmen. It was admitted by him that Exs. M1 and 2 contain the names of the permanent workers alone. The finding recorded by the Labour Court, in this background that more than 100 persons must have been employed at the time of respondent’s services were terminated, cannot be regarded as arbitrary. 32. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the burden is on the workmen to show by positive evidence that the number of employees was in excess of 100 and it was for them to give the names of the persons employed. 32. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the burden is on the workmen to show by positive evidence that the number of employees was in excess of 100 and it was for them to give the names of the persons employed. It is not possible to accept this submission as all the registers and other records relating to the perons employed by the petitioner are in the custody of the employer and it is for the employer to disclose all the material documents form which the Court can, after considering the same, in the light of other evidence if any before the court, determine the number of workmen employed at the relevant time. 133. The Labour Court has considered all the documents produced by the parties cand has found that several corrections and other entries made therein could not be accepted as genuine and aS having been made at the relevant time. It has taken note of the admittted position that some casual workers were employed. For the purpose of Section 25K, it is not merely permanent workers who are to be taken into account but all the workmen employed on an average working day in the preceeding twelve months. This question being one of fact, the finding recorded by the Labour Court, after considering the materials beofe it, cannot he interferred with. The finding, so recorded cannot be characterised as perverse. 134. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that even if it could be hold tha petitioner had violated Section 25(O) the Labour Court could not direct reinstatement of the workmen as the employer had already closed down its operation. It was submitted that the Labour Court misdirected itself regarding the legal status of the petitioner employer which is a company registered under the Companies Act with a distinct and legal entity. The Labour Court, it was submitted, had wrongly assumed that merely because petitioner company was one of the companies of the group known as Murugappa Group, services of the employees were transferable from one company to another and that an award could be made against a “group” which had no legal identity and which was not the employer. Counsel for the workmen however contended that the group of companies set out in Ex. Counsel for the workmen however contended that the group of companies set out in Ex. M70 constitute the Murugappa Group of Companies and that this group constitutes one Industrial establishment for purpose of Section 2(ka) and Section 25L of the Act, and therefore, the petitioner had an obligation to provide employment to workmen in any of the other companies in the group. 36. A company registed under Companies Act, hsa distinct legal personality of its own which is unaffected by the fact that its shareholders or directors may also be shareholders or directors of other companies. Though such companies may be inter connected, in law they are separate and distinct. Though the interconnection of such companies and common managerial control may be relevant for the purpose of Companies Act or the law governing monopolies, such inter connections does not render them the joint employer of all the workmen employed by them separately and does not make them jointly and severally liable for the adjudicated claims of such workmen. The reinstatement directed by the Labour Court cannot be construed as a direction for reinstatement of the employees in the services of anyone of the companies which form part of the group of companies under the control of the same person or group of persons. 37. If the termination of the petitioners’ services can be held to have been effected in breach of Section 25(O), the relief that could be granted could only be in monetary terms, and not reinstatement in their original positions, as admittedly the petitioner closed its operations several years ago. 38. As the petitioners were not required to comply with Section 25(O), the termination of employment of the respondent workment cannot be regarded as unjustified by reason of non-compliance with Section 25(O). The petitioner has admittedly complied with Section 25FF and the closure effected cannot be regarded as illegal. 39. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside and the claims made by the respondent workmen are dismissed. Petitioner however shall not be entitled to recover any amount that may have been paid to the respondents during the pendence of this petition.