K. T. Rolling Mills Private Ltd. and Anr. vs M. R. Meher.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1959 Supreme(Bom) 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mudholkar, J.C. Shah and S.T. Desai, JJ.
Appellants: K.T. Rolling Mills Private Ltd. and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: M.R. Meher and Ors.
Appeal No. 86 of 1958 and Misc. Appln. No. 23 of 1958 Decided On: 20.11.1959
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.D. Vimadalal, J.L. Nain and P.L. Nain, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: D.K. Buch, C.L. Dudhia, K.K. Singhvi and C.J. Sawant, Advs.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 25-C - LAY-OFF COMPENSATION - RIGHT OF WORKMEN TO CLAIM - WHETHER RESTRICTED TO WORKMEN IN INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS TO WHICH S. 25-C APPLIES - WHETHER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CAN AWARD LAY-OFF COMPENSATION TO WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN AN INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT TO WHICH S. 25-C DOES NOT APPLY ON GROUNDS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, a private limited company carrying on the business of a steel rolling mill and the Managing Director of that company, employed on an average per working day less than fifty workmen. The workmen raised an industrial dispute claiming that the appellants "shall give regular work of average 25 days in a month throughout the year or pay wages and allowances for the minimum of 25 days in a month with effect from 1556", and without prejudice to that demand they also made claim that "with effect from 1st April, 1956, in case regular work cannot be provided and if the workers are laid off or had to suffer involuntary unemployment, they shall be given full wages and allowances for the days they are so laid-off or involuntarily unemployed." The workmen also claimed that those who had not been given work for certain days of the month be fully compensated since 1st January, 1955, and paid full wages and allowances for the days on which they were not given work and were involuntarily unemployed. The Industrial Tribunal held that the workmen were not entitled to lay-off compensation under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, but having regard to all the facts and circumstances and the financial position of the company, "on grounds of equity and social justice" the workmen were entitled to lay-off compensation for the period during which they were laid-off from 1st August, 1955 to 31st October, 1957, at the rate of one-third of the wages and dearness allowance that would have been earned by the workmen if they were not laid off. The appellants then applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the competence of the Industrial Tribunal to award lay-off compensation and claiming a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order awarding lay-off compensation and a Writ of Prohibition restraining enforcement of the Tribunals award in so far as it related to lay-off compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The right to claim lay-off compensation is not recognised in favour of workmen in every "industrial establishment" in the general sense in which that expression would have to be understood having regard to the very wide meaning given to the expression "industry" in the definition Clause (Section 2 (k)) but in the limited and restricted sense given to the expression "industrial establishment" by the explicit language of the Explanation. It the safe and reliable course of construction, that as far as reasonably possible the Court should not depart from their obvious and grammatical meaning, be adhered to, the effect of those provisions plainly seems to me to be that Section 25-C recognizes the right to claim lay-off compensation only in case of these industrial establishments which are expressly enumerated in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Explanation. It follows from those provisions read together that workmen in industrial establishments other than factories, mines and plantations are not entitled to claim compensation for lay-off.
Issues: Whether it is open to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to award lay-off compensation to workmen employed in an "industrial establishment" to which Section 25-C of the Act does not apply.
Ratio Decidendi: The Legislature has by inserting Chapter VA settled what was disputable and with a view to avoiding difficulties and uncertainty declared what the law relating to lay-off is and by saying that Section 25-C has a limited application it has ruled that the right extends only to those who fall within the ambit of Section 25-C and are not excluded from its applicability by Section 25-A.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Rule made absolute.

JUDGMENT - Shah, J.

1. The question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether it is open to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to award lay-off compensation to workmen employed in an ""industrial establishment"" to which Section 25-C of the Act does not apply.

2. The two appellants are respectively a private limited company carrying on the business of a steel rolling mill and the Managing Director of that company. At alt material times the appellants employed on an average per working day less than fifty workmen. The workmen employed by the appellants raised an industrial dispute claiming that the appellants ""shall give regular work of average 25 days in a month throughout the year or pay wages and allowances for the minimum of 25 days in a month with effect from 1556"", and without prejudice to that demand they also made claim that ""with effect from 1st April, 1956, in case regular work cannot be provided and if the workers are laid off or had to suffer involuntary unemployment, they shall be given full wages and allowances for the days they are so laid-off or involuntarily unemployed."" The workmen also claimed that those who had not been given work for certain days of the month be fully compensated since 1st January, 1955, and paid full wages and allowances for the days on which they were not given work and were involuntarily unemployed. Conciliation proceedings were adopted in the first instance to resolve this industrial dispute, but as they proved infructuous the Government of Bombay referred the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal held that the workmen were not entitled to ,ay-off compensation under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, but having regard to all the facts and circumstances and the financial position of the company, ""on grounds of equity and social justice"" the workmen were entitled to lay-off compensation for the period during which they were laid-off from 1st August, 1955 to 31st October, 1957, at the rate of one-third of the wages and dearness allowance that would have been earned by the workmen if they were not laid off. The appellants then applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the competence of the Industrial Tribunal to award lay-off compensation and claiming a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order awarding lay-off compensation and a Writ of Prohibition restraining enforcement of the Tribunals award in so far as it related to lay-off compensation. The petition was heard by Mr. Justice K. T. Desai, and the learned Judge agreed with the view of the Tribunal that apart from the provision of Section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, in a reference under Section 12 (5) of the Act it was open to the Industrial Tribunal to award lay-off compensation to the workmen. Against the order passed by Mr. Justice K. T. Desai this appeal has been preferred.

3. Chapter VA and certain consequential amendments were introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953. By Section 2 (kkk) of the Act ""lay-off"" is defined as ""the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reason to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched."" By the Explanation to that clause it is provided :

""Every workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of the industrial establishment and who presents himself for work at the establishment at the time appointed for the purpose during normal working hours on any day and is not given employment by the employer within two hours of his so presenting himself shall be deemed to have been laid-off for that day within the meaning of this clause.""

That Exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document