AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Sud, J.—the sole question for consideration in the present writ petition is whether Respondent No. 1-Chander Parkash is entitled to claim 50 per cent suspension allowance for the period of his suspension i.e. from 19.9.1981 to 19.3.19982 or not.
On an application filed by the workman-Chander Parkash, u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Labour Court upheld his claim for 50% suspension allowance for the period of his suspension. One of the specific pleas raised by the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that since it was a small unit employing only 14-16 workers, no Model standing orders were applicable to it. While allowing the claim, the Labour Court in its order dated 28.12.1982 (Annexure P-7) had not even noticed this argument. In the present writ petition it has been pointed out that the Labour Court had given a totally erroneous finding as no Model Standing Orders had been issued under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Such orders issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946 (for short the ''Act'') are not applicable to the Petitioner since it does not employ more than 100 workers. Model Standing Orders relied upon by the Labour Court have not been made applicable to smaller concerns like the Petitioner employing less than 100 workers.
Notice in the writ petition was given to Respondent No. 1, who did not put in appearance. The writ petition was, therefore, admitted and the operation of the impugned award was stayed vide order dated 26.7.1983. The writ petition was listed for arguments on July 10, 2001, when again nobody put in appearance. The matter was. therefore, adjourned to today. Today again no one is present on behalf of Respondent No. 1. The Respondent has also not chosen to file any reply to the averments made in the writ petition.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the proviso to Section 1(3) of the Act, wherein it has been provided that the Act applies to the Industrial Establishments where 100 or more workers are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months. He further pointed out that there is a proviso under which the industrial units employing less than 100 workers can also be covered, but for that purpose a specific notification is required to be issued after notice to the parties. However, he has averred in para 2 of the writ petition that no such notification had been issued upto this date.
In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner which have not been controverted. I am satisfied that the impugned order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. I, therefore, hold that the Labour Court was not justified in granting 50% suspension allowance for the period 19.9.1981 to 19.3.1982 to Respondent No. 1.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Labour Court dated 28.12.1982 is hereby quashed. Since no one has put in appearance for Respondent No. 1, there shall be no order as to costs.