As per case facts, a cement factory depended entirely on its own nearby limestone quarry for raw material. When the quarry workers went on strike, the factory was forced to ... lay off some of its workers due to the lack of limestone supply. After the strike was resolved, the factory workers demanded lay-off compensation. The management denied this claim, arguing that the lay-off was caused by a strike in "another part of the establishment," thereby disqualifying the workers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal initially ruled that the quarry and factory were separate establishments, making the factory workers eligible for compensation. The company appealed this decision. The central legal question arose whether the limestone quarry constituted "another part of the establishment" alongside the cement factory, making the factory workers ineligible for lay-off compensation under the relevant statute. Finally, the Supreme Court determined that the factory and the limestone quarry were indeed a single, integrated "establishment." The Court highlighted their shared ownership, unified management and control, common financing, integrated employment and service conditions, functional integration, a singular overall purpose, and close geographical proximity. Consequently, the Court ruled that the lay-off resulted from a strike in another part of the same establishment, and thus, the factory workers were not entitled to lay-off compensation.