Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of ten Civil Writ Petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 1617, 2948 to 2956 of 1982, as the same are arising from the common Award dated 4.12.1981. 2. All these ten petitions have been filed by the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Management) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing part of the Award dated 4.12.1981 (Annexure P-1) which direct the payment of compensation to the retrenched workmen (respondents herein) under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. In these cases, on an industrial dispute raised by the respondents-workmen, the Government of Punjab referred the said dispute to the Labour Court, Ludhiana for its adjudication under Section 10(l)(c) of the Act. The adjudication was to be made on the issue whether termination of services of the respondents-workmen was justified and in order and if not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation were they entitled? 4. The Management, in its written statement, took the stand that its Custom service unit was running into heavy losses, therefore, the same was closed down. As a result of that, services of the workmen were terminated. The workmen were paid compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Labour Court: 1. Whether the Custom Service unit of the respondent closed down and the workman was discharged in consequence? If so, whether the workman was entitled to retrenchment compensation? 2. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the workman was paid the retrenchment compensation as per law? 3. Whether the reference is unmaintainable on the basis of preliminary objections of the written statement? 4. If issue Nos. 1 to 3 are not proved, whether termination of services of the workman was justified and in order? 5. Relief. 6. On issue No. 1, it was held that the Custom Service unit of the petitioner was closed down and the respondents along with other workmen were retrenched, therefore, it w as further held t hat t hey were entitled for r entrenchment compensation. 5. Relief. 6. On issue No. 1, it was held that the Custom Service unit of the petitioner was closed down and the respondents along with other workmen were retrenched, therefore, it w as further held t hat t hey were entitled for r entrenchment compensation. On issue No. 2, it was held that the Management has only paid compensation to the retrenched workmen under Section 25-F of the Act, according to which the retrenched compensation is to be paid equivalent to 15 days wages for each year completed service along with notice pay equivalent to one months salary, whereas it was found that the industrial concern of the Management is falling under the definition of industrial establishment under Section 25-L of the Act, thus the Management is liable to pay retrenchment compensation according to the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act. In this regard, the Labour Court has observed as under: Chapter V(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been made applicable to Industrial establishments which has been defined in Section 25-L as follows: 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 f 1952); or iii) a plantation as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951). 9. He has examined Shri Rajinder Parshad, Senior Clerk of the respondent as WW1 who stated that on 28.10.1978 the total strength of the respondent was 776. However, this alone not be sufficient to bring the respondent concern within the ambit of industrial establishment. Industrial establishment means a factory as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act/Section 2(m) of the Factories Act defines factory as any premises where ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which is a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, ii) where twenty 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 without the aid of Power. The main emphasis is on the "manufacturing process". The main emphasis is on the "manufacturing process". In order to constitute the factory there must be "Manufacturing Process" going on in the factory. 10. "Manufacturing Process" has been defined in Section 2-K of the Factories Act and process for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal. 11. Shri Rajinder Parsad WW1 stated that he had brought the record relating to the fact that the workers had been working under Shri Sukhjit Singh at Ludhiana. As per order dated 6.8.1978, Shri Sukhjit Singh, Superintendent of workshop was directed to be over all in charge of the Ludhiana complex of the Corporation. Although there is no direct evidence regarding "Manufacturing process:, but it is established from the statement of WW1 that these workmen were employed under the Superintendent Workshop, which was being run for repairing work of Tractor and harvest combines, Section 2-K(i) of the Factories Act defines repairing as the "manufacturing process". As such, for these reasons, the workmen were not paid compensation as per law as they were required to be given compensation equivalent to three months salary as notice pay. The issue is decided against the respondent. 7. After making the aforesaid observations, it was held that full compensation was not paid to the workmen, therefore, the references were answered in favour of the workmen and it was ordered that they shall be given retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25N of the Act. The amounts already received by the workmen towards the compensation under Section 25-F of the Act were ordered to be adjusted towards the payable retrenchment compensation. In the impugned Award, the amount payable to each of the workman has also been calculated. The total amount awarded to the workmen in all these ten petitions is Rs. 1 1,042/-. 8. Counsel for the petitioner raised two fold submissions, Firstly, that in view of Section 25-K of the Act, Chapter VB is applicable only to such industrial establishment in which not less than three hundred workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months (the words "three hundred" in Section 25-K were substituted with words "one hundred" by Act 46 of 1982 w.e.f. 31.8.1984). Secondly, it has been submitted that as per Section 25-L of the Act, which defines the "industrial establishment", establishment of the petitioner does not fall under the definition of factory, as defined in Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948. Section 2(m) of t he Factories Act defines the "factory" as any premises where 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. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since no manufacturing process was being carried in the concern of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner company would not fall under the definition of factory. He further submitted that the Labour Court, while relying upon the statement of Rajinder Parhad, has wrongly held that since the repairing work of tractor and harvest combines was being carried out by the petitioner concern, therefore, the said work falls under the definition of manufacturing process. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence on the record that the repairing work of tractor and harvest combines was being carried out in the unit, where the respondents-workmen were working, therefore, this finding of the Labour Court is without any evidence. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the impugned award, I do not find any substance in either of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. On both the issues, the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of evidence. Firstly on the basis of statement of Rajinder Parshad, Senior Clerk of the petitioner concern, it has been held that on 28.10.1978, total strength of the petitioner establishment was 776. The second finding of fact regarding the repairing work of tractor and harvest combines has been recorded on the basis of statement of Rajinder Parshad to the effect that all the workers were employed under Superintendent of workshop, which was being run for the repairing work of tractor and harvest combines. Thus, both the findings have been recorded on the basis of evidence available on the record. Counsel for the petitioner has neither placed on record the reply filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court nor any contrary evidence has been shown, which they have led before the Labour Court. Thus, both the findings have been recorded on the basis of evidence available on the record. Counsel for the petitioner has neither placed on record the reply filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court nor any contrary evidence has been shown, which they have led before the Labour Court. He could not point out that what evidence has been ignored by the Labour Court while recording the findings on the aforesaid two issues. He only referred to the averments made in the writ petitions, which are not part of evidence before the Labour Court and in my opinion, the same cannot be looked into. Keeping in view these facts and particularly the fact that the total amount involved in these ten petitions is only Rs. 11,042/-, I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of facts recorded by the Labour Court and the conclusion arrived on the basis of the said findings. Dismissed.