Savatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd. vs Baliram Ukandaji.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1962 Supreme(Bom) 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.L. Abhyankar and D.G. Palekar, JJ.
Appellants: Savatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Baliram Ukandaji and Ors.
Special Civil Appeal Nos. 360, 381 and 382 of 1961Decided On: 25.08.1962
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.B. Bobde, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: V.P. Sathe, Adv.

Headnote:
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) is applicable to the textile industry in Vidarbha region in view of the local Act, viz., the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, being in operation in this region. The Labour Court appointed under Section 7 of the Central Act has power either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Central Act to adjudicate on the issues raised by the Mills when the amount payable to the claimants as lay-off compensation has not been previously determined by any competent authority.
Fact of the Case:

In the instant case, the petitioners, Messrs. Sawatram Ramprasad Mills, Company, Rai Saheb Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills at Hinganghat, and Baliram, an employee of the Mills, filed applications before the presiding officer of the Labour Court, Bombay, at Nagpur. The claim in each of the applications was for payment of lay-off compensation on the ground that the worker was illegally laid off by the employer and was entitled to compensation under Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Mills raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application or to adjudicate on the same. The Mills denied the liabilities. They also denied that any of the claimants was entitled to make the application or that the period during which the worker was not on duty was a period of lay-off or that there was any lay-off.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) is applicable to the textile industry in Vidarbha region in view of the local Act, viz., the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, being in operation in this region. The Labour Court appointed under Section 7 of the Central Act has power either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Central Act to adjudicate on the issues raised by the Mills when the amount payable to the claimants as lay-off compensation has not been previously determined by any competent authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) is applicable to the textile industry in Vidarbha region in view of the local Act, viz., the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, being in operation in this region. 2. Whether the Labour Court appointed under Section 7 of the Central Act has power either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Central Act to adjudicate on the issues raised by the Mills when the amount payable to the claimants as lay-off compensation has not been previously determined by any competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) is applicable to the textile industry in Vidarbha region in view of the local Act, viz., the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, being in operation in this region. The Labour Court appointed under Section 7 of the Central Act has power either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Central Act to adjudicate on the issues raised by the Mills when the amount payable to the claimants as lay-off compensation has not been previously determined by any competent authority. The court relied on the following principles: * The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) is applicable to the textile industry in Vidarbha region in view of the local Act, viz., the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, being in operation in this region. * The Labour Court appointed under Section 7 of the Central Act has power either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Central Act to adjudicate on the issues raised by the Mills when the amount payable to the claimants as lay-off compensation has not been previously determined by any competent authority.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs in each case.

Judgment

Abhyankar, J.

1. The order in this application will also govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961.

2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 360 of 1961 is Messrs. Sawatram Ramprasad Mills, Company, and the contesting respondent is one of their workers, Baliram. In the other two petitions, Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961, the petitioner is Rai Saheb Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills at Hinganghat, and in each the contesting respondent is one of the workers in the Mill. In all the three cases an employee of the Mills, which are all textile Miils in Vidarbha region, filed an application "before the presiding officer of the Labour Court, Bombay, at Nagpur. The claim in each of the application was for payment of lay-off compensation on the ground that the worker was illegally laid off by the employer and was entitled to compensation under Section 25A (sic 25C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Specific amounts have been claimed as lay-off compensation. The workers claimed the amount by making an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947 which shall be hereafter referred to as the Central Act

3. In each of these cases the Mills raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application or to adjudicate on the same. The Mills denied the liabilities. They also denied that any of the claimants was entitled to make the application or that the period during which the worker was not on duty was a period of lay-off or that there was any lay-off. In respect of the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills at Akola, it was contended that the closure of the Mills was brought about by a huge gathering of the Mill employees surrounding the geneYal office. The gathering of the employees Started shouting slogans. The inmates were not allowed to go to their residence for rest and were illeealiy confined. The employees denied this allegation about demonstration by shouting of slogans and threats. Thus, as a result of the situation created by the employees a notice was put up on the next day under Standing Order 19 by which all the employees were laid off as working, had become impossible.

4. The tenability of the application and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the issues raised were treated as preliminary issues. The Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application and adjudicate on the matter, and that the applicants in each case were entitled to make this application under Section 33C of the Central Act.

5. Against this order the Mills have come up to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In support of the petitions two points were raised and argued at length:

(1) Whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) is applicable to the textile industry in Vidarbha region in view of the local Act, viz., the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, being in operation in this region.

(2) Whether the Labour Court appointed under Section 7 of the Central Act has power either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Central Act to adjudicate on the issues raised by the Mills when the amount payable to the claimants as lay-off compensation has not been previously determined by any competent authority. We shall deal with these contentions in the same order.

6. To understand the first contention it is necessary to consider the history of legislation by the Central Legislature and the State Legislature; when the Industrial Disputes Acts were put on the statute book.

7. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) passed by the Dominion Legislature of India came into force in the whole of India on 1st of April 1947. As the preamble to the Act shows, the Act was passed because it was considered expedient to nuke provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes. It is not disputed that the Act applied to textile indust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis