( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 16-8-1996 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in M. P. No. 86 of 1991, filed by the deceased, 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, Guntur, undersection 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (forshort the i. D. Act ). He pleaded that initially he was engaged as Newspaper distribution Worker, by the father of the writ petitioner, and thereafter, underthe petitioner, for about 60 years. He submitted that in July 1991, he has fallen ill and could not discharge his duties from 15-07-1991 onwards. He is said to have reported to duty, to the petitioner, on 30-07-1991.

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent claimed that he was unlawfully retrenched from service without paying any compensation. He claimed a sum rs. 13,800/- on that account. Same amount was claimed towards gratuity for the entire period of his service. A sum of Rs. 19. 600/-was claimed towards salary for Sundays and other holidays. The 2nd respondent died while the M. P. No. 86 of 1991 was pending, and respondents 3 to 11 herein were brought on record as legal representatives.

( 3 ) THE petitioner resisted the claim, and pleaded thatthough the 2nd respondent worked under his father, when the agency of newspaper Distribution, was with them, he ceased to be the employee with them, with the closureof distributorship. Objection was raised as to the maintainability of the M. P. No. 86 of 1991. A plea was taken to the effect that, even where any dues of gratuity exist, they cannot be recovered, in proceedings under section 33-C (2 ). Through the impugned order, the Labourcourt allowed the claim for payment of retrenchment compensation and gratuity, amounting to Rs 27,600/- It rejected the claim of Rs. 19,600/-, towards the salary forsundays and other holidays.

( 4 ) SRI P. Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act is comparable to execution proceedings, and unless there exists a predetermined claim, it cannot be maintained. He contends that the 2nd respondent was not the employee of the writ petitioner and there did not exist any basis for initiation of proceedings. He further submits that the provisions of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972, cannot be enforced under section 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act.

( 5 ) SRI P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 11, on the other hand, submits that his clients did not challenge the retrenchment as such, and the retrenchment compensation can certainly be claimed in proceedings under Section 33. He contends thatthe I. D. Act is acomprehensive enactment and arrears of gratuity can be claimed in the proceedings initiated under it.

( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act, and made three claims against the petitioner, viz. , (a) retrenchment compensation of rs. 13,800/- (b) amount payable towards gratuity of rs. 13,800/-, and (c) arrears of salary for Sundays and other holidays of Rs. 19,600/ -. He submitted that he was employed with the petitioner as well as his father, for about 60 years. He specifically pleaded that he was retrenched from service with effect from 15-07-1991 without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the I. D. Act.

( 7 ) THE 2nd respondent was examined as p. W. 1. He filed Ex. P-1, a copy of the notice issued by him to the petitioner. A reply received thereto, was marked as Ex. P-2. The writ petitioner was examined as R. W. 1, and a person, who worked as Supervisor under him, from 1978, was examined as R. W. 2. The labour Court allowed the first two items of claim, and rejected the third one. Form the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, two questions arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. , (1) Whether application under section 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act is maintainable to challenge the retrenchment, and (2) Whether the amount payable towards grat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document