P. N. BHAGWATI, D. A. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE main question raised in this petition is about the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 The petitioner herein made an application to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad which came up for disposal before the Second Labour Court at Ahmedabad alleging therein that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who were carrying on business in the name of respondent No. 1 closed the undertaking with effect from 13th November 1966; and consequently discharged the petitioner from service. The petitioner requested the Labour Court to compute his retrenchment compensation to which he was entitled to according to him under sec. 25fff of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent contested the application inter alia contending that the petitioner was not discharged from service as contended by him; but his services were terminated on 12th November 1966 because of his old age and therefore he was not entitled to compensation under sec. 25fff. It also appears to have been contended before the Labour Court that as the closure of the undertaking is not admitted an issue would arise whether services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the closure of the undertaking and the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to decide this issue in an application made under sec. 33c (2 ). The Labour Court rejected the application observing that as closure of the undertaking is not admitted by the respondents and unless it is admitted computation of the benefit could not be made the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction to decide the question of closure because retrenchment of workmen and closure of the establishment is an item in the Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and matters set out in Third Schedule are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of this decision in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) INDUSTRIAL Disputes Act was enacted as its preamble and long title show to provide machinery and forum for the investigation of industrial disputes and for the settlement thereof and for the purposes analogous and incidental thereto. Emergence of the concept of welfare State implied an end to exploitation of workmen and as a corollary thereto collective bargaining came into its own and lest the conflicting interests of the workmen and employer disturb the industrial peace and harmony a machinery for adjustment of such conflicting interests became the felt needs of time. Industrial Disputes Act was enacted to provide machinery and forum for adjustment of such conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable interests without disturbing the peace and harmony in the industry assuring industrial growth which was the pre-requisite for a welfare State. The Act in its broad outlines provides a method for bringing to the notice of the Government which in a welfare State cannot afford to look askance at the industrial unrest industrial disputes and once what are broadly described as industrial disputes came to the notice of the Government the Government could compel the parties to resort to arbitration and for that purpose different forums were set up for the resolution of such disputes. The Act did not provide for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests. Such norms had to be evolved and devised keeping in view social and economic conditions the needs of the workmen the requirements of the industry social justice relative interests of the parties and national good. Once these norms for adjustment of conflicting interests were evolved or devised by awards of Industrial Tribunals or by terms of settlement between workmen and employer those norms become rights. Rights in themselves mean nothing unless they are enjoyable and if enjoyment of a right after its acquisition is denied there must be a machinery for its enforcement. Rights without machiner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document