AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bains, J.—This petition has arisen out of a dispute between the Petitioner management and Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 employees of the management. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were employed by the Petitioner-Company as unskilled labourers. They were not allowed to work when they reported for duty on June 2, 1967, by the Petitioner-company. Demand notice was issued by Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 challenging the '' lay off'' refusal of giving work to them, as illegal. On the basis of demand notice, the State of Haryana referred the dispute for adjudication vide their notification dated the 7th September, 1967, to the Labour Court.
Claim was filed by Respondents 3 and 4 before the Labour Court alleging that their services were illegally terminated and at any rate they were not permitted to resume their duties. It was also stated that they were illegally laid off in an abnormal manner by the management and they attended the factory daily but they were not allowed to resume duties. The management in their written statement raised a preliminary objection that no individual dispute regarding the propriety or legally of a ''lay off'' can be raised and adjudicated upon as an Industrial dispute. It was also stated that the services of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had not been terminated and as such the reference is premature. The parties contested on the following issues before the labour Court:-
Whether no individual dispute could be raised in this case because in this notice of demand it is only mentioned that the claimants were laid off for the last 5 months and nothing has been paid to them?
Whether the reference is premature?
Whether the dispute as referred to this Court is vague ?
Whether the Government has exceeded its executive limits when making this reference to this Court ?
Whether the reference is invalid because there are individual disputes only while the Government has referred them as dispute between the management and the workmen ?
Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shrimati Mata Devi and Sat Bhirai or alternatively not allowing them to resume their duties was justified, and
If the above issues are found in favour of the claimants to what relief they are entitled.
The only material issues are issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The Labour Court decided these issues against the management and allowed the claim of the workmen holding that their services were illegally terminated and that the claimants were entitled to their full back wages and reinstatement. It is against the award dated December 30, 1967 (Annexure ''B'') of the Labour Court that this writ petition has been filed.
Mr Mittal, Learned Counsel for the petitiner, urges that the services of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not terminated but they were laid off and the Labour Court was not justified in accepting the claim of the workmen. This contention is without any merit. The workmen are ladies in this case, admittedly no notice of any ''Lay Off'' was given to them. It was only on June 2, 1967 that when they reported for work they were not allowed to work. ''Lay Off'' is defined in Section 2(KKK) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is in the following terms:-
Lay-Off'' (with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions) means the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reasons to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched.
Explanation-Every workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of the industrial establishment and who presents himself for work at the establishment at the time appointed for the purpose during normal working hours on any day and is not given employment by the employer within two hours of his so presenting himself shall be deemed to have been laid-off for that day within the meaning of this clause:
Provided that if the workman, instead of being given employment at the commencement of any shift for any day is asked to present himself for the purpose during the second half of the shift for the day and is given employment then, he shall be deemed to have been laid off only for one half of that day.
Provided further that if he is not given any such employment even after so presenting himself, he shall not be deemed to have been laid-off for the second half of the shift for the day and shall be entitled to full basic wages and dearness allowance for that part of the day.
Admittedly, in this case no notice of ''lay off'' was given. A bare reading of this definition snows that the ''lay off'' means the failure, refusal or instead(sic) of an empower on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reason to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment, and who has not been retrenched. The workers can be laid off only if there is a failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account o(sic) shortage of coal, power or raw material or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reason to give work. But the employer cannot arbitrarily refuse to give work to the worker, who presents himself for work at the establishment. It is implicit in the definition that the employer is to give notice as to why he is laying off the workers, who cannot be laid off arbitrarily and without reason. The worker can only be laid off for the grounds mentioned in the definition which must be mentioned in the notice. The employer must give reasons as to why he was laying off the workers whether there was shortage of raw materials, coal, power or Accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reasons could not give employment to the workers for a particular day or subsequent days. Admittedly, in this case no such reason to given and there is no evidence that the lay off was just. On the other hand the workers in this case are ladies, and there is evidence that they daily reported for duty and without assigning any reason they were not given work by the management. Rule 75 of the Industiral Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958(sic), is in the following terms: -
* * *
(After reproducing Rule 75 his lordship proceeded)
Admittedly, no procedure as provided in the rule is followed. For the reasons recorded above. I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction or infirmity in the impugned award of the Labour Court. The workers are women in this case. It is, therefore, directed that they be reinstated forthwith and paid back wages from the date of their termination of services at the rate they were getting prior to the termination of their services. The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.