ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent in claim petition No.374 of 2002 dated

12.09.2013 thereby ordered to pay minimum wages, bonus and overtime wages with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. The respondents 2 to 25 (hereinafter called as 'workmen')

filed claim petition under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act for computation of money value of the benefits entitled to them together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The petitioner is the management / firm (herein called as management) had not implemented various welfare legislations which are provided under Labour Legislations. Therefore, the workmen raised Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. However, the conciliation failed and referred the failure report dated 20.06.2001 and the same was numbered as ID.No.84 of 2003. The Labour Court passed award dated 06.01.2004 in ID.No.84 of 2003 and held that the closure of the management from 5.6.2000 is illegal and not justifiable. Further directed the management to reinstate the respondents 2 to 25 herein with continuity of service, full backwages and all other attendant benefits. The workmen filed a writ petition before this Court to implement the said award. The management also filed writ petition to challenge the said award. This court, by common order dated 27.09.2011 remitted ID No.84 of 2003 to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Labour Court dismissed the Industrial Disputes raised by the workmen by award dated 25.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the workmen filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.27964 of 2014.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the management had manufactured the components of ophthalmic instruments and there were 45 employees. The same was closed on 05.06.2003 after informing the closure to the concerned authorities and the workmen by affixture in the closed door of its factory. The findings of the first respondent are perverse, arbitrary without proper application of mind. The claim petition was filed by the workmen to claim minimum wages, overtime allowances at double the rate of wages on minimum wages and the bonus on the minimum wages payable to them. Therefore, the entire claim of the workmen are based on applicability of the minimum wages to them. The entitlement of minimum wages is not a benefit to be claimed under Section 33 (C )(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the claim petition itself is not maintainable. Further, there is no pleading in the claim petition that the alleged minimum rates of wages were applicable to the management and there was no clear adjudication as to their entitlement of minimum rates of wages. If at all the management failed to pay minimum wages, the workmen ought to have invoked the provision under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, the alleged entitlement of benefits claimed, are yet to be decided and as such, the claim petition for computation of benefits are not at all maintainable by way of claim petition under Section 33(C )(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Nathan Press Vs. K.Krishnan and others reported in

1988(2) LLN 95 (ii)D.Krishnan and another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and another reported in (2008) 7 SCC 22 (iii)H.P.State Electricity Board and another Vs. Ranjeet Singh and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 241 (iv)Cholan Roadways Ltd Vs. G.Thirugnanasambandam reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241

4. The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that the management is still functioning. It is evident from the EX.P8, the letter issued by the Commercial Tax Department thereby stated that the management have closed their business only from 01.07.2007. Chennai Telephone Directory also stated that the mana