AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner herein, viz., Cambodia Mills Limited, filed the present writ petition challenging the common order, dated
02.9.2004 passed by the Labour Court in various claim petitions filed by the contesting Respondents starting from C.P. No. 110 of 2004 to C.P.
No. 164 of 2004.
The contesting Respondents/workmen were represented by Coimbatore District Annai Indira Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam affiliated to
INTUC, before the Labour Court. The claim petitions filed by the workmen were u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter will
be referred to as ''the Act'' for short) and the workmen claimed payment of full wages for the period from January 2002 to December 2002,
during which, the Petitioner management laid-off the workmen. The lay-off was purported to be for the reason that there was some power failure
or power trippings, which according to the management, is beyond their control and the workers were not given any work during the said period.
It is the understanding of the management that in case of lay-off due to shortage of power or natural calamity, no prior approval is required from
the competent authority u/s 25M(1) of the Act. They also placed reliance upon Clause 11 of the Standing Order certified by the Joint
Commissioner of Labour under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, under which, the Management/General Manager may at any time,
in the event of fire, catastrophe, breakdown of machinery or stoppage of power supply, epidemic, civil commotion or other causes beyond his
control, stop working any machine or close any department or departments wholly or partially for any period or periods. In the event of such
stoppage or closure, the workmen affected will be notified by notices put upon the Notice Board. Therefore, in terms of the Standing Order and
their own understanding of Section 25M of the Act, they did not seek approval. It is also claimed by the management that during the lay-off period
they offered alternative employment to the workers, which the workers did not avail of and they have also been paid 50% of the wages as lay-off
compensation.
Notwithstanding the same, the workmen moved the Labour Court with various claim petitions claiming full wages for the said period of lay-off,
on the ground that the management failed to get prior approval from the competent authority u/s 25M(1) of the Act. Inasmuch as no application for
permission was made, the lay-off laid down by them was illegal and, therefore, they are entitled for full salary u/s 25M(8) of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
The Petitioner management, on receipt of notice from the Labour Court, filed a counter statement dated 19.7.2004. Before the Labour Court,
on behalf of the workmen, four documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4. On the side of the Petitioner management, three
documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. The workmen also relied upon the earlier order passed by the Labour Court, dated
18.3.2004 in C.P. Nos. 866 to 905 of 2002 for the earlier period and it was marked as Ex. P.4. In so far as the management is concerned, they
marked Standing Orders as Ex. R.1 and the Report relating to stock position of the yarn for the year 2002 as Ex. R.2 and the copy of Annual
Report as Ex. R.3. There was no oral evidence let in.
The Labour Court, on the basis of those materials held that the defence taken by the management was not valid in the light of Section 25M of
the Act and inasmuch as they have not sought for any approval from the competent authority, the lay-off is illegal.
The term ''''lay-off"" is defined u/s 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the perusal of the said definition does not show that the exclusions
sought for by the management has been provided therein as exceptions. The second argument of the management that the claim petition u/s 33C(2)
of the Act is not maintainable was also rejected by the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that Section 25M(8) of the Act contemplates
statutory entitlement of the workers for claiming wages even without any adjudication and in case of refusal of permission or non-obtaining of
permission, the workmen are entitled for wages as if there was no lay-off.
The Supreme Court has held that for any claim arising under Chapter V-B, the workers need not even move the Labour Court for any
computation of the amount and even the authority which is entitled to give Certificate u/s 33C(1) of the Act can order such Certificate straightaway
without any further decision by any other forum. The law has been made clear vide the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fabril Gasosa Vs.
Labour Commissioner and Others, .
The third contention raised was that the Labour Court did not take note of the provision of alternative employment to the workers. It is also
noted that the defence of alternative employment during the period of lay-off is provided u/s 25E of the Act coming under Chapter V-A. In the
present case, it is the management''s understanding that any lay-off due to power shortage need not require any permission. Only when such
application is made and the Government agrees with the offer made by them, the management can take such a defence. Even before the Labour
Court, they did not lead any documentary evidence and no oral evidence was also let in on this defence. In the circumstances, this Court do not
find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the first Respondent Labour Court.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs.