AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Ismail, C.J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., dated 25th February, 1975, made in Writ Petition No. 1419
of 1971, (1975) 48 F.J.R. 212. Certain admitted facts are necessary to be set out for the purpose of understanding the point involved in the
present writ appeal. A partnership firm called The Mysore Premier Metal Factory was carrying on the business of manufacture of aluminium
utensils and other articles from the year 1939. In or about 1945, in order to facilitate its business of manufacture, it purchased the Hindustan Metal
Refinery and Rolling Mills. The learned Counsel for the appellant, even at the outset, stressed that the machinery of the Rolling Mills was second-
hand machinery. The Government of India gave a separate registration number for the rolling mills purchased as well as for the undertaking owned
by the firm for manufacturing utensils. On 1st January, 1965, the Management of Jeewanlal (1929) Limited, the first respondent herein, purchased
the two undertakings owned by the Mysore Premier Metal Factory and the change of ownership was recognised by the Government of India
separately for the Rolling Mills and the utensils manufacturing section under the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951. After such
acquisition, it was found that the machinery and the equipment in the rolling mills were far from trouble-free and required repairs, overhauling and
replacement. The working of the rolling mills ever since the purchase by the first respondent-company resulted in the output being of extremely
poor equality which had no market. In or about 1968 the machinery in the rolling mills was said to have become unworkable and the manufactured
stocks accumulated to a value of rupees ten lakhs. Under these circumstances, with a view to effect extensive repairs to the machinery, the first
respondent-management proceeded to lay-off certain workmen; as evidenced by Ext. M6, copy of the lay-off notice dated 5th August, 1968. This
notice staled that the machinery and equipment of the rolling mills were antiquated and out of date, apart from requiring extensive major repairs,
overhauling and replacement immediately and that resulted in the output from the rolling mills being of extremely poor quality (sheets, strips and
circles) and that the company had been finding it next to impossible to market any of those rolled products or utensils made there from, even
though the company had been offering them for sale at price below cost. The notice further stated that the situation had been persisting ever since
1966, and of late the situation was extremely acute, and that, as a result, the company had been sustaining losses; but the working in the rolling
mills was continued in the hope that it would be possible to carry out extensive repairs to the machinery and equipment and improve the quality of
the rolled products. Competition from virgin metal rollers with better and modern machinery and equipment and numerous scrap rollers was
extremely keen and the first respondent-management was diffident whether, even with the repairs to the existing machinery, they would be able to
compete with such manufactures; as a result of this the operations of the rolling mills had become uneconomical and stocks to the tune of about ten
lakhs of rupees had accumulated with the management and the management was left with no alternative but to suspend further production in the
rolling mills for major repairs, through overhauling of the machinery and equipment and further probe into the matter.
On 16th September, 1968, as evidenced by Ext.M10, Mathew Alapatt, B.E. (Mech.) V.D.I. C/o Gears and Drives, sent a report to the
management. That report stated:
Your Mills were working for over half a century, much more than the life of similar mills. It is very uneconomical and risky to work it any further.
As short time repairs were done several times in the past to the gear box, the main shaft and the base of the Mills, we suggested complete re-
machining and re-alignment. But a further study of your Mills were undertaken and it was found that the damages to your Mills were extensive in
nature and we proposed to stop working the Mills for complete dismantling in order to avoid serious breakdown and also the risk of danger to
men and machinery.
A preliminary report was sent to you on 18th July, 1968, explaining the condition of your mills and the possible steps to be taken. It was proposed
to stop working the Mills, dismantle them, lift the shafts and main frame, etc., from foundation in order to ascertain in detail the damages and wear
on the various parts of the Mills and to study the possibility of repairs to just put it into working condition to produce at least sub-standard
products. Our proposal was agreed by you and confirmed that the Mills arc closed with effect from 6th August, 1968, to carry out necessary
repairs under our supervision.
After stating so, the report proceeded to state what were the major defects they found after dismantling the important driving shaft. It stated
further:
Further, the Mills even after repairs are likely to give trouble in operation and frequent breakdown due to the bad worn-out condition of most of
the component parts, such as wooden gearings, couplings, main rolling stand guides, etc.
However, we contacted a few large local engineering firms for undertaking repairs, and they have informed that they are not interested in carrying
out the repairs on job work basis. Under these circumstances, we doubt very much whether there is any possibility of getting these major repairs
executed locally except we may have to contact some large engineering cering firms in Bombay or Calcutta. Then again the duration of execution
of repairs, the usefulness of your Mills with regard to production and their condition and a correct cost of repairs could not be estimated at this
stage without detailed measurements and enquiries.
The report wound up by stating:
A product in accordance with the standards drawn by ISI can be expected only from a modern Mill. The modern fast Mills will give you five times
the production of your old Mill. You cannot expect standard quality products conforming to ISIS standards, even after the complete overhauling
and repairs of your Mills and it will not be economical in operation.
We would further like to frankly express our view that we cannot assure you the trouble-free and economic working of your Mills even after the
repairs, because the Mills are obsolete and should have been replaced with new modern high speed ones at least a few years earlier in order to
ensure economical and standard products and to compete favourably in the market.
There is another report dated 16th September, 1968, a copy of which has been marked as Ext.M11. That report also dealt with the condition
of the Mills. It stated:
The final decision to re-build the equipment must be based on financial and cost considerations which is outside the scope of this report. However,
even if the equipment is restored to a mechanically workable condition, it will have a very low productivity and the quality of the product-circles for
utensils manufacture will be poor.
Even this report wound up by stating, "" the installation is out-dated and has outlived its usefulness.
In between these two reports, there was a communication from the Government of India, Directorate General of Technical Development, dated
21st August, 1968, a copy of which has been marked as Ext. M7, addressed to the management. This communication stated:
I am directed to say that Government have examined the question of ensuring the quality of aluminium utensils, being used for domestic purposes. It
is considered that danger to health arising from the use of substandard material in the manufacture of utensils is really of a serious nature calling for
remedial action. You are aware that household utensils are an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
I.S.I. have already laid down specification for cast aluminium, wrought aluminium and aluminium alloy for utensils but adherence to these laid down
specifications by the aluminium utensil manufacturers is not to the desired degree in order to safeguard against the health hazards of the users at
present.
The Government have now desired that all organised industries should be made to use I.S.I. marking and that I.S.I. certification mark should be
made compulsory for all products notified under the Essential Commodities Act,
You are, therefore, advised to adhere to the above instructions and ensure that in utensils the use of aluminium sheets should be of prescribed
specification of I.S.I.
It was after all this that the management issued the closure notice dated 14th October, 1968, a copy of which has been marked as Ext. M13.
This notice stated:
The employees of the Rolling Mills undertaking of the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills are aware of the circumstances in which it
became necessary for the company to lay-off the workmen and suspend production in the Rolling Mills with effect from 6th August, 1968. Since
that date the company had been exploring the possibility of repairing the archaic and out-of-date machinery in the Rolling Mills and experts were
also consulted as to the feasibility of working the Mills after extensive repairs. The experts have now opined that even after all the repairs are
carried out, the working of the Mills would be uneconomic and the quality of the material produced will also be poor. These factors and the fact
that since 1966 the undertaking has been sustaining losses were taken into account at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the company held on
18th September 1968, and it was resolved with very great regret that due to circumstances beyond its control the company is unable to continue,
the working of the undertaking and, therefore, should be closed as soon as possible. The employees are, therefore, informed that with effect from
14th October, 1968, the undertaking of the Rolling Mills will be closed down and the employees concerned are being individually informed of the
termination of their services and of the compensation and other moneys to which they are entitled.
It was this action on the part of the first respondent-management that gave rise to two industrial disputes, namely, Industrial Dispute No. 92 of
1968 and Industrial Dispute No. 61 of 1969, before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. In G.O. Rt. No. 2841 dated 24th December, 1968, the
Government referred the following issues for the determination of the Tribunal:
Whether, the lay-off with effect from 6th August, 1968, and the subsequent non-employment with effect from 14th October, 1968, of the
workmen mentioned in the Annexure II are justified ; if not to what relief they are entitled ?
To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed.
In G.O. Rt. No. 1460, dated 28th November, 1969, Government referred the following issue for the determination of the Tribunal:
Whether, the non-employment of Thiruvalargal Tarapathy, Rama Prasad, Bir Bahadur and Ash Bahadur is justified, if not, to what relief they are
entitled:
To compute the relief, if any awarded, in terms of money, if it can be so computed.
We are concerned in this case only with the closure of the Mills and the compensation to which the workmen are entitled, The case of the
workmen before the Tribunal was that it was not a case of closure, but merely retrenchment of the workmen. This contention was put forward on
the basis that the Mysore Premier Metal Factory and the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rollings Mills were a single unit, that, consequently, when
the first respondent-management closed down the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills and sent the workers out, with reference to the
entire institution it constituted only a retrenchment and that, therefore, the workmen were entitled to compensation only on that basis. As against
this, the contention put forward on behalf of the management was that the Mysore Premier Metal Factory and the Hindustan Metal Refinery and
Rolling Mills constituted two different units, that a separate registration number had been given to the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills,
that, therefore, what happened was a closure of the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills and that by no stretch of imagination could the
workmen be said to have been retrenched. With regard to the quantum of compensation the management put forward the contention that the
present case would fall within the scope of proviso to Section 25FFF(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that therefore the compensation
to which the workmen would be entitled would be only their average pay for three months and nothing more. It was these two questions that were
considered by the Tribunal in its award dated 10th February, 1971. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the workmen that what had been done was
only a retrenchment, since both the units constituted one single undertaking. At the same time, the Tribunal rejected the case of the management
also to the effect that the case fell within the scope of the proviso to Section 25FFF(1) of the Act, so that the workmen would be entitled to
compensation only as provided for under the proviso, and not under the main Section 25FFF(1).
As against this award of the Tribunal both sides preferred writ petitions. The management preferred Writ Petition No. 1419/71 in so far as the
Tribunal had held that the case did not all within the scope of the proviso to Section 25FFF(1). The workmen preferred Writ Petition No. 3281 of
1971 in so far as the Tribunal had held that what had happened would not constitute retrenchment, but was merely a closure of a separate unit.
Ramanujam, J., by his judgment dated 25th February 1975, allowed the writ petition preferred by the management and dismissed the writ petition
preferred by the workmen. So far as the dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the workmen is concerned, it has become final, since no appeal
has been preferred against the same. The workmen have preferred the present writ appeal against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., allowing Writ
Petition No. 1419/71 filed by the management, holding that the proviso to Section 25FFF(1) of the Act is attracted to the facts of this case.
Consequently, the only question which we have to consider in this appeal is whether the proviso to Section 25FFF(1) applies to the present case
or not.
For considering this question it is necessary to extract Section 25FFF(1) along with the proviso and the explanation thereto:
25-FFF(l). Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than
one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions for Sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and
compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched:
Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the
compensation to be paid to the workman under Clause (b) of Section 25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months,
Explanation : An undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of-
(i) financial difficulties (including financial losses) ; or
(ii) accumulation of undisposed of stocks; or
(iii) the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it ; or
(iv) in a case where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on ;
shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the
proviso to this sub-section.
Thus it will be clear that the explanation to the proviso Section 25FFF(1) functions more or less as a definition of an undertaking being closed
down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer. In the present case, Ramanujam, J., for coming to the
conclusion that the case fell within the scope of the proviso to Section 25FFF(1), has taken into account several factors, such as the working
condition of the machinery, the incapacity of the machinery to produce standard products (the products in question being aluminium utensils used
for cooking purposes coming within the scope of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955), and the inability of the Rolling Mills to produce utensils
satisfying the requirements of Indian Standards Institution standards. After taking into account all these aspects, the learned Judge held that the
closure in this case was the result of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the management. The learned Judge has stated as follows at
p. 222 of 48 F.J.R.:
From the facts set out above, it is clear that unless the rolling mill is modernised by replacing the existing machinery with the latest, up-to-date and
sophisticated machinery at a huge cost, it was not possible to work the mill profitably or without offending the law.
The learned Judge further observed (at p. 224):
In view of the above pronouncements by the Supreme Court the circumstances such as the nature and condition of the machinery which can only
produce sub-standard products by the company and the prohibition by the State of the manufacture in future of such sub-standard products which
cannot conform to the Indian Standards Institution standards and the difficulty in marketing those substandard products in a competitive market
where products manufactured by some modern sophisticated mills are available, have to be taken to be unavoidable circumstances beyond the
control of the company.... The facts proved in this case clearly establish that the matter has gone out of the company''s hands and that even with
ordinary and due diligence the machinery in the mill cannot be worked profitably.
Mr. S. Ramaswami, the learned Counsel for the appellant, questions the correctness of the conclusion of Ramanujam, J., relying upon two
decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as certain other facts. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent-management knew all along that
the machinery was worn out, and, without taking proper steps either to buy new machinery or to repair the existing machinery the management
cannot continue to use the worn out machinery and extract work from the workmen and ultimately say that the machinery cannot be used thereafter
and therefore, the company was being closed down. According to the learned Counsel, such a situation cannot be said to be a closure resulting
from unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the management. This would appear to be the very ground on which the Tribunal decided
against the management in the present case. Unfortunately, while doing so, the Tribunal would appear to have contradicted itself. In paragraph 46
of its award, the Tribunal states:
The argument that the proviso to Section 25FFF applies is not to be accepted, for the explanation to the above section reads that the mere fact
that there is accumulation of stock or financial loss or difficulties, cannot mean that the closure was due to circumstances beyond the control of the
management. The financial loss and accumulation of stock, which are factors that are proved can be taken note of, but then, on top of the above
factors there must be some other factor to claim that closure was done on account of circumstances beyond the control of the management. In our
case it was known to the management that machinery was out-dated and repairs were failed to be done even years ago. Surely, working on
substandard machines for any number of years and then saying at the end of the period, that the factory is closed down owing to circumstances
beyond the control of the management is somewhat illogical. The management knew that it had to buy new machines or repair the existing
machines, but it went on getting work from the employees on out-dated machines and so closure was done, at a belated point of time and
knowledge was there with the management for all the prior years that the machines were getting worn out and getting useless for any further
operation.
While making these observations, the Tribunal forgot to take into account the fact that the management acquired the mills only on 1st January,
1965, and from 1966 onwards the condition to which it had made reference in the lay-off notice as well as the closure notice persisted. Further, as
we pointed out already, what the Tribunal states in another part of the award is somewhat in conflict with what the Tribunal has stated in the
passage which we have just extracted above. In paragraph 21 of the award the Tribunal rejected the contention of the workmen that the entire
thing was preplanned by the management. The Tribunal observed:
In my view the argument that everything was preplanned and that lay-off was a prelude to the closure that followed up, and the closure itself was
preplanned even when Ext. M6 notice was issued is not a correct argument. The unsold stock was large. The circles manufactured in the rolling
mills were below standard. The management did attempt to devise ways to see whether by repairing machinery improvement in the quality of
sheets could be made, but then the expert declared that the machinery was beyond repairs for it had lived its span of life. I find that lay-off was
done in a bona fide way, for the working of the rolling mills was found not feasible or practicable or profitable and so the lay-off was followed up
by closure. I find that both lay-off and closure of the rolling mills were bona fide and were done on account of heavy losses ; the un-productivity
factor led to the ultimate closing down of the rolling section itself.
However, what we are concerned with in the present case is whether the case falls within the scope of the proviso to Section 25FFF(1) of the
Act or not, as pointed out already. It is in this context that reliance has been placed on the two decision of the Supreme Court, as we indicated
already. The first decision on which reliance was placed is Hathising Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Union of India 1960-II L.L.J. I. In that case,
the validity of Section 25FFF(1) and the proviso thereto came in for consideration. In that case also, out of the three petitioners before the
Supreme Court, one was a company where the machinery in the factory was installed in the year 1893 and had not been replaced thereafter. In
dealing with the argument with regard to the scope of the proviso to Section 25FFF(1) the Supreme Court observed (at p. 10):
When the closure of an undertaking is due to circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the maximum limit of compensation is average pay
for three months, irrespective of the length of the service of the workmen ; in the residuary class, the liability is un restricted. The explanation is in
substance a definition clause which sets out what shall not be deemed to be closures on account of circumstances beyond the control of the
employer. By this explanation, employers who had to close down their industrial undertakings merely because of financial difficulties including
financial losses or accumulation of undisposed of stocks are excluded from the benefit of the proviso to Section 25FFF(1). The proviso restricts
the liability of employers who are compelled to close down their undertakings on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond their control, but,
in the view of the Parliament, in that category are not to be included employers compelled to close down their undertakings merely because of
financial difficulties or accumulation of undisposed of stocks. Closure of an undertaking attributable merely to financial difficulties or accumulation
of undisposed of stocks is, by the explanation, excluded from the benefit of restricted liability ; but, coupled with other circumstances, financial
difficulties or accumulation of undisposed of stocks may justify the view that the closure is due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of
the employer, and attract the application of the proviso notwithstanding the explanation.
Where an undertaking is closed down on account of persistent losses due to no fault of the employer or due to accumulation of stocks having
regard to persistent unfavourable market conditions, the closure may normally be regarded as due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the
control of the employer. By the explanation the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which may be called upon to ascertain whether in a given case the
closure was on account of circumstances beyond the control of the employer and whether on that account the employer was entitled to the benefit
of the proviso may be restricted. But it is not provided that in no case of financial difficulty or accumulation of stocks, coupled with other
circumstances, the closure is to be regarded as due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer. It is only where the closure
is ""merely"" on account of financial difficulties or accumulation of undisposed of stocks that the closure is not to be deemed due to circumstances
beyond the control of the employer.
(Underlining supplied)
Again, the Supreme Court observed:
By the explanation, certain persons may, because of persistent losses or accumulation of stocks find themselves unable to carry on the business,
and may still not be entitled to the benefit of the proviso, but that will not be a ground for holding that the explanation is unreasonable. The Tribunal,
called upon to decide whether the case of an employer is covered by the proviso, will certainly be entitled to look into the causes which led to (he
financial losses or the accumulation of stocks and ascertain whether the closure was merely on account of financial losses or accumulation of stocks
or was on account of circumstances beyond the control of the employer, and in assessing whether the circumstances were beyond the control of
the employer, the fact that the employer has suffered financial losses or there is accumulation of stocks, is not required by the legislature to be
excluded from consideration.
The Supreme Court in that case was considering the predecessor of the present explanation to proviso in question, which was in the following
form:
An undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of financial difficulties (including financial losses or accumulation of undisposed of stocks)
shall not be deemed to have been closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of
the proviso to this sub-section.
But this explanation has been replaced by the present explanation by Section 4 of Act 45 of 1971 with effect from 15th December, 1971,
However, we arc of the opinion that the above decision of the Supreme Court is not of any assistance to the contention advanced on behalf of the
appellant herein. From what we have extracted above, it is clear that what the Supreme Court was pointing out in that case was that if a closure
takes place merely because of financial difficulties or accumulation of undisposed of stocks, such a closure could not be regarded as due to
unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to find out what
led to the financial loss or accumulation of undisposed of stock and ascertain whether the financial loss or accumulation of undisposed of stock was
on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer.
In this case, Exts. M 10, M7 and M11, clearly show that, even if extensive repairs were carried out to the machinery, the respondent-Mills
would not be in a position to manufacture standard products conforming to I.S.I. standards, which would have the effect of violating the provisions
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Consequently, in the present case the closure was not merely account of financial losses or accumulation
of undisposed of stocks, but because of inability to produce standard products conforming to I.S.I. standards and in accordance with the
requirements of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The fact that the management first issued a lay-off notice with a view to see whether the
machinery could be repaired, and, after the receipt of Ext.M10, M7 and M11, it issued the closure notice, will clearly show, as found by the
Tribunal itself, that the entire action of the management was bona fide and that the closure was the result of total inability on the part of the
management to produce standard products with the available machinery. It was only in view of this that the learned Counsel for the appellant went
to the extent of contending that the management kept idle when the machinery went on wearing put for years and years, and, having done so, it
was not now open to the management to turn round and say that the closure was the result of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the
management. For this purpose strong reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on a passage in the decision of the Supreme
Court in Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1969-I L.L.J. 557. The very same passage on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel
for the appellant before us has been extracted by Ramanujam, J., himself in the judgment under appeal. The said passage occurs at page 566 and
is to the following effect:
The explanation appearing in the proviso gives some indication of the anxiety of the Legislature to expressly rub out certain contingencies which
ordinarily could have been pleaded by the employer as unavoidable circumstances beyond his control. In the normal working of business of a
commercial undertaking financial losses or accumulation of undisposed of stocks and the expiry of the period of the lease or the licence can
ordinarily go a long way in establishing that it has virtually become impossible to carry on the business. For instance, if a company is heading
towards liquidation, its business will, in normal course, have to be closed down. Similarly, if the period of lease of the site on which a factory has
been set up has expired and there is no provision for its renewal or extension, it would ordinarily present insurmountable difficulty in the way of the
working of an undertaking by a company or a commercial concern. Notwithstanding all this, the Legislature provided that in spite of the aforesaid
difficulties or impediments or obstacles the conditions of the proviso would not be satisfied merely by the happening or existence of the
circumstances embodied in the explanation. The reason for doing so seems to be that whenever such difficulties as are mentioned in the explanation
arise, the employer is not expected to sit idly and not to make an all out effort like a prudent man of business in the matter of tiding over these
difficulties for saving his business. The Legislature was apparently being very stringent and strict about the nature of the circumstances which would
bring them within the proviso. The laying down of two pre-conditions therein in the language in which they are couched is significant and must be
given due effect.
We arc clearly of the opinion that these observations will have no application to the facts of the present case. We have already referred to the
fact that the first respondent-management purchased the mills only on 1st January, 1965. Exhibit M10 clearly states that the mills are obsolete and
should have been replaced with new modern high speed ones at least a few years earlier in order to ensure economical and standard products and
to compete favourably in the market. Similarly, Ext. M. 11 slates that the installation is outdated and has outlived its usefulness. Taking all these
factors into account it cannot be contended that the management sat idly by when the machinery was being worn out and went out of order. As a
matter of fact, the Tribunal itself, as already pointed out, has stated in its award:
The management did attempt to devise ways to see whether by repairing machinery improvement in the quality of sheets could be made, but then
the expert declared that the machinery was beyond repairs for it had lived its span of life.
As a matter of fact it was not the case of the appellant herein that the management, soon after its purchase of the mills on 1st January, 1965, was
under an obligation to replace the entire machinery involving unusual exertion or expenditure.
Having regard to all the circumstances, we see no reason whatever to interfere with the order of Ramanujam, J., and consequently the writ
appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
As soon as we pronounced the above order, Mr. S. Ramaswami, the learned Counsel for the appellant, orally made a request for the grant of
a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment. Having regard to the facts of this case to which we have made detailed
reference, we cannot say that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which, in our opinion, needs to be decided by
the Supreme Court and consequently we reject the request for the grant of certificate.