JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:— As the main question for determination in these appeals by special leave is common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

Civil Appeal No. 2307 of 1969

2. The respondent company in this appeal has its Head Office at Bombay. It manufactures tyres at its Bombay factory and sells the tyres and other accessories in the markets throughout the country. The company has a Distribution office at Nicholson Road. Delhi. There was a strike in the Bombay factory from 3rd March, 1967 to 16th May, 1967 and again from 4th October, 1967. As a result of the strike, there was a short supply of tyres etc. to the Distribution Office. In the Delhi Office, there were 30 employees at the relevant time. 17 workmen out of 30 were laid-off by the management as per their notice dated the 3rd February. 1968. which was to the following effect:

"Management is unable to give employment to the following workmen due to much reduced production in the companys factory resulting from strike in one of the factory departments.

These workmen are, therefore, laid-off in accordance with law with effect from 5th February, 1968."

3. The lay-off of the 17 workmen whose names were mentioned in the notice was recalled by the management on the 22nd April, 1968. The workmen were not given their wages or compensation for the period of lay-off. An industrial dispute was raised and referred by the Delhi Administration on the 17th April, 1968 even when the lay-off was in operation. The reference was in the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management to lay-off 17 workmen with effect from 5th Feb. 1968 is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief are these workmen entitled?"

4. The Presiding Officer of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi has held that the workmen are not entitled to any lay-off compensation. Hence this is an appeal by their Union.

5. We were informed at the Bar that some of the workmen out of the batch of 17 have settled their disputes with the management and their cases were not represented by the Union in this appeal. Hence this judgment will not affect the compromise or the settlement arrived at between the management and some of the workmen.

6. The question which falls for our determination is whether the management had a right to lay-off their workmen and whether the workmen are entitled to claim wages or compensation.

7. The simple dictionary meaning according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the term lay-off is "period during which a workman is temporarily discharged." The term lay-off has been well known in the industrial arena. Disputes were often raised in relation to the lay-off of the workmen in various industries. Sometimes compensation was awarded for the period of lay-off but many a time when the lay-off was found to be justified workmen were not found entitled to any wages or compensation. In Gaya Cotton and Jute Mills Ltd. v. Gaya Cotton and Just Mills Labour Union, (1952) 2 Lab LJ 37 (L. A. T. I.-Cal.) the standing order of the company provided that the company could under certain circumstances

"stop any machine or machines or department or departments, wholly or partially for any period or periods without notice or without compensation in lieu of notice."

In such a situation for the closure of the factory for a certain period, no claim for compensation was allowed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India. We are aware of the distinction between a lay-off and a closure. But just to point out the history the law we have referred to this case.

8. Then came an amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - by Act 43 of 1953. In Section 2 clause (kkk) was added to say:

"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 law materials or the accumulation of stocks or the break-down of machinery or for any other reason to gi