AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Rout, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party (workman). He prays for adjournment and listing after ensuing vacation. His client will file counter in the meantime.
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-management and submits, there be direction for remand. The Industrial Tribunal by impugned award dated 26th September, 2022 purported to find non-compliance of provision in section 25-N in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without basis of available evidence. Drawing attention to chapter V-B, he submits that section 25-K makes applicable the chapter to an industrial establishment, as specified.
Section 25L is the definitions section giving meaning of industrial establishment. Evidence was required to have been addressed for finding that his client comes within meanings provided under clause (a) in the definitions section 25-L.
We have had a cursory look at impugned award. We appreciate that application of chapter V-B would require the management to pay three months’ notice pay. There is clear finding that the notice pay and compensation were tendered after five months on threat of not clearing provided fund, which was returned. Further finding is, there was specific evidence by the workman, admitted by management witness (MW) that there was no compliance of section 25-L.
Petitioner will be heard on adjourned date. Opposite party may file counter in the meantime. Nevertheless we observe that parties are free to resolve their differences in the meantime.
List on 15th November, 2023.
…………………………