Management of Kunjalal, Debidutt Oil and Atta Mills vs R. Labhaya, Pres Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Others

Mehrotra, C.J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Management of Kunjalal Debi-dut Oil, Rice and Atta ''Mills of Fancy Bazar, Gauhati asking for a writ of certiorari quashing the award made by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam. The State Government by its notification dated the 30th January 1961 u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter colled "the Act") referred the following questions to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:

(1) Whether the Management of Knnjalal Debidutta Rice and Oil Mill are justified, in deducting wages of Sri Bindeswari and 8 others for 15 days in the month of August 1959?

(2) If not are they entitled to any relief Two other questions were referred to the Tribunal. But for the purpose of this petition it is not necessary to go into those questions. The Tribunal came to the conclusion on consideration of the materials before it that the Management was not entitled to deduct fifty per cent of the wages for fifteen days in the month of August 1959 from the wages of the nine workmen. It is against this award that the present petition has been filed.

The main contention raised by Mr. for the Petitioner before as is that the having held that the psovisions, of Sections 25C to of the Act do not apply to this industry as kers employed are less than fifty on the- average per working day was not justified . in -awarding -muff amount of compensation to the workmen Section 25C(i). The Tribunal has held that the pre sent case comes u/s 25A of the Act end that the provisions of Ss. 25C to 25E are not But the Tribunal is of the view that if Sections 25C and 25E are not attracted to this case that is another to the Tribunal examining the question deductions from the salary were justified when the question has been referred to the tCS RsSw-nal u/s 10. Unless the question of deduction is not an industrial dispute, the Tribunal were competent to go into that question. The Tribunal further held that in view of the notice by the Management, the Management in a way ed that at least the workmen were entitled to then compensation on the principles embodied another Section 25C of the Act.

Mainly the point raised before us is there the prohibition contained in Section 25A is prohibition. Once a particular industry is ed by the provisions of Section 25A, the workman of that industry are not entitled to get any argument sation for the lay-off period. The Tribunal in effect has granted them the lay-off compenation. The statutory prohibition could not thus the cumvented by the Tribunal. We do not third that it can be said in the present case gard to the various documents placed we by the parties that what the workmen were ground ed was any compensation by way of lay off their clear case was that although the Management closed their mill or did not work their some time, still as the workmen were ployment of the management, they were to get their salary for the period during factory was closed and the deduction made there their salary was not justified. The corparation which passed between the Management workmen also shows that they had not claimed compensation for lay-off. In these circomtances unless the Petitioner is able to show to us chat there was any bar under the Act to given there full wages for the period during which they mained in the employment of the Management are the Management for justifiable reasons had to close the working of the mill, we do not that the Management was entitled to demant the part of the wages from their salary.

Reliance has been placed "by Mr. tahin two cases South India Corporation v. Au Sirfxaate'' Cashewnut Factory Workers'' Federation, reperbad in 1900 2 Lab LJ 103 : (AIR 1960 Ker are The Kohinoor Saw Mill Co. Ltd., Baliapatam, North Malabar Vs. The State of Madras, The facts cases are entirely different. Mr. Lahiri relies upon these cases in support of lass tions. In the first case the point which was before the Tribunal was that the factory being seasonal factory the provisions of Sections 25C to the were not attracted. The Tribunal in holding that the provisions were not granted the compensation by way of social justice. That principle was are accepted by the Supreme Court and it was held that the principles of social justice do not expemer the Tribunal to go behind the provisions at the Act. There it was held that the claim of the workmen was for compensation by way of lay-off he we have already observed, in the present are them the correspondence as well as from the painted referred it does not appear that there was any abaim of lay-off. What the workmen were abtaining was that the doduction from their salary was and justified. They were not to our mind, procesing of any lay-off compensation within the proceing of Section 25C. The terms of reference are very explicit of this point.

In the second case the only point which are arised was that the Government has no power to great an to refuse to grant exemption. The only right given to Government u/s 25A is to decide on facts whether the factory is a seasonal factory or not and having so held the High Court decided for itself on; the facts whether the factory as seasonal factory or not. The fact that 25C applies to- the present case will only result lia tire non-application of provisions of Sections 25C to 25E are it will be treated as if for the purposes of the present dispute these sections were non-existend. If these sections were non-existent, it Be said'' that the dispute raised with regard be the deduction form the amount of salary is not an imdustrial dispute. Nor can it be said that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether the was or was not justified and if so to what anbent. We do not think that there, was any memifest error in law or that the Tribunal excertied for jurisdiction. The. petition has thus are force and" it is rejected with costs which we asrese at Rs. 50/-.

S.K. Datta, J.

I agree.