Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MUDHOLKAR AND KOTWAL, JJ.
Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. "The Empress Mills" Nagpur, Petitioner
Versus.
State Industrial Court at Nagpur and another, Respondents.
Special Civil Application No. 35 of 1958, Dt-8-7-1958.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - LAY-OFF - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(KKK) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - STANDING ORDERS 19 AND 20 - LEGALITY OF LAY-OFF WITHOUT NOTICE OF CHANGE - APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER V-A OF THE ACT TO STANDING ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Empress Mills, faced labor unrest and strikes due to a change in work shifts. The recognized union, respondent No. 2, filed an application before the State Industrial Court alleging that the lay-off of certain workers was an illegal change and in contravention of Standing Order 20. The petitioner contended that the lay-off was permissible under Standing Order 19 due to absenteeism and shortage of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lay-off was not an illegal change as it was permissible under Standing Order 19(1), which allows the employer to stop any machine or department without notice and without compensation in lieu of notice due to various reasons, including shortage of process. The court interpreted Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines lay-off, and held that the lay-off in this case did not fall within the definition as it was not due to any cause beyond the control of the workmen.
Issues: 1. Whether the lay-off of workers was an illegal change in violation of Standing Order 20. 2. Whether the lay-off was permissible under Standing Order 19(1) due to shortage of process. 3. Whether Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides for compensation for lay-off, amended Standing Orders 19 and 20, making the payment of compensation a condition precedent to a lay-off.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and held that the lay-off in this case did not fall within the definition as it was not due to any cause beyond the control of the workmen. 2. The court held that the lay-off was permissible under Standing Order 19(1), which allows the employer to stop any machine or department without notice and without compensation in lieu of notice due to various reasons, including shortage of process. 3. The court held that Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides for compensation for lay-off, does not amend Standing Orders 19 and 20 to make the payment of compensation a condition precedent to a lay-off.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the State Industrial Court was quashed.
This is a petition under Arts. 22,6 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order passed by the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, in the matter arising under the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.
(2) The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner is known as the Empress Mills Nagpur. These mills are five in number and are known and styled as Empress Mills No. 1, Empress Mills No. 2, Empress Mills No. 3, Empress Mills No. 4 and Empress Mills No. 5. The respondent No. 2 is a recognised Union for the local area of Nagpur in respect of Textile Industry at Nagpur.
(3) On 7-1-1958, the petitioner, i.e., the Empress Mills, served a notice of change on the respondent No. 2. After discussion over the matter, an agreement was reached between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on 17-1-1956 and it was agreed between the parties that Empress Mills No. 1 should be demolished and persons who used to work there should be transferred to third shifts of Empress Mills Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which shifts were agreed to be started for the purpose of absorbing workers from Empress Mills No. 1. According to the petitioner, the non-recognised Unions resented this agreement and started agitation against the Empress Mills as a result of which several un authorised strikes took place. Due to these strikes, normal working of the mills was completely dislocated with the result that the petitioner was compelled to close down the Mills on and from 11-2-1956. They deobred the closure of the Mills till such time when sufficient number of workers ex pressed their willingness to resume work normally and peacefully and carry on the work in accordance with the provisions of the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2.
(4) Eventually, the Mills reopened on 23-4-1956. According to the petitioner, despite the re opening of the Mills strikes and absenteeism continued in all the Mills and more particularly in the third shifts. In fact, according to the petitioner, the third shifts did not work at all till 6-6-1956. Though the third shifts started working after that date, the attendance was very small till August, 1956. The petitioner therefore entered into correspondence with the respondent No. 2 on this matter and brought to the notice of the respondent No. 2 the state of affairs obtaining in the Mills. The letters addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 are of 27-6-1956 and 7-7-1956. The petitioner pointed out to the respondent No. 2, among other thing, that doffers had refused to work as siders and tenters even though they were sufficiently acquainted with these jobs and that this refusal on their part had completely dislocated the Working in the third shifts. The petitioners contention is that the respondent No. 2 instead of rendering full assistance and adequate co-operation to the petitioner in restoring the normal working of its units filed an application before the respondent No. 1, the State Industrial Court on 4-7-1956 under Sec. 41 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, alleging that even though the workers presented themselves for work they were not given work, that this amounted to an unlawful lay-off and was in contravention of the provisions of the Standing Order No. 20. According to the respondent No. 2 the Standing Orders stood amended by virtue of the provisions of Chapter VA of the "industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provided for payment of compensation to the workers who were laid off. The respondent No. 2 also contended that the lay-off was not bona fide and was not for any trade or good reason and that therefore it could not be effected without notice of change. Upon these grounds the respondent No. 2 sought a declaration to the effect that he lay-off was an illegal change.
(5) The petitioner in their reply to the application of the respondent No. 2 raised the following content
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
