Back
J. C. SHAH, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, S. M. SIKRI, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. N. WANCHOO
Sawtram Ramprasad Mills Company LTD. , Akola – Appellant
Versus
Baliram Ukandaji – Respondent
What is the proper forum and applicable law for determining compensation for lay-off under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? What is the role of Section 33-C in enabling a workman to recover money due from an employer for lay-off, and must the calculation be done under the Act rather than under the CP & Berar Act? What is the effect of Section 31 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 on whether CP & Berar Act can govern lay-off disputes?
Key Points: - The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies to lay-off compensation under Chapter V-A, not the CP & Berar Act (!) (!) . - Section 33-C empowers a workman to recover money due under Chapter V-A via certificates issued to the Collector, enabling recovery as arrears of land revenue; disputes for such money go before the appropriate Government or its delegate (Second Labour Court) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 31 (1956 Amendment) clarifies that the CP & Berar Act cannot override the provision for lay-off compensation; lay-off matters must be decided under Chapter V-A and Section 33-C, with Government/delegate handling recoveries (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that calculating the amount of lay-off compensation can be ascertainable from muster rolls and simple arithmetic, and the Labour Court may determine the amount even if exact sums are not predetermined at the outset (!) . - Appeal dismissed; the Mills failed to show CP & Berar Act could govern lay-off disputes; Second Labour Court should adjudicate promptly (!) . - The decision references precedent on recovery and computation under Section 33-C (Kays Construction Co. case) supporting calculable claims based on muster rolls (!) .
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : In this appeal by certificate against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, dated August 25, 1962 the appellant is the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd., Akola, and the respondents two of the workmen of the Mills. The respondents are claiming from the Mills compensation for lay off from March 5, 1960 to October 22, 1960. The proceedings were commenced by an application to the Second Labour Court, Bombay, under S. 33C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947). The Mills objected on various grounds including firstly that the Second Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the dispute fell to be tried under the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes (Settlement) Act, 1947 and, secondly, that the application under S. 33C, in any event, was incompetent. The Second Labour Court held against the Mills on both the grounds. The Mills applied to the High Court of Bombay under Arts, 226 and 227 of the constitution but by the judgement under appeal their application was dismissed. It may be pointed out here the there were similar applications for compensation for lay off by the other workmen of the Mills and on this preliminary point they
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
