Management of Kaleeswarar Mills vs The Presiding Officer Labour Court and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is a management of Kaleeswarar Mills, Coimbatore represented by its General Manager. Aggrieved by a common order passed by the 1st Respondent Labour Court in various Claim Petitions starting from C.P. Nos. 398 of 2002 to 430 of 2002 dated 30.4.2004, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

The Writ Petition was admitted on 10.2.2005. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted. The contesting Respondents moved the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking for payment of full wages for the period of their lay off.

The case projected by the contesting Respondents was that inasmuch as the Petitioner mill is covered by the provisions of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and since no prior permission was obtained u/s 25-M(1) of the Act, the workers are eligible for full wages in terms of Section 25-M(8) of the I.D. Act. The management took several pleas including the maintainability of the petition as well as the fact that they had offered some alternative employment and at the relevant point of time there was electricity shortage and frequent shutdown and those reasons were beyond the control of the employer and Section 25-M of the Act will not apply.

Before the Labour Court, on the side of the workmen three documents were filed and marked as Ex.P.1 to P.3. On the side of the management, 13 documents were filed and marked as Ex.R.1 to R.13. No oral evidence was let in. The Labour Court held that the contention that during the relevant period they were paid 50% of the wages cannot be a ground to hold that there was valid lay off and even the order directing payment of interim relief was subsequently set aside by the court and does not bind on the workmen and also it found that the management''s contention that the lay off is exempted in terms of Section 25-M is also not acceptable and since no prior approval, which is the mandatory requirement, was obtained and the benefit u/s 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act will apply to the case of the workmen. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

Though the management contended that the Claim Petition is not maintainable, such a question raised is no longer res integra.

The Supreme Court in Fabrl Gasosa v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Ors. reported in 1997 (90) FJR 306 that the Claim under Chapter V-B can even be computed by an authority u/s 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it does not require further adjudication by any Court. Therefore, the contention regarding liability must necessarily fail. Further, the term "lay off" is clearly defined u/s 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the contingency prayed for by the management does not find in the exception provided under the said definition. Therefore, there is no impediment for the Labour Court to compute the said amount. The same question came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 30276 of 2005 dated 28.2.2011 and decided in favour of the workmen.

Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by the management. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. In case any of the contesting Respondents are not alive, the right naturally accrues to the legal heirs and they can claim the amount from the Petitioner management. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.