AMCO BATTERIES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by an employer governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is directed against an order of the Labour Court, Bangalore, made in Appln.75 of 1972, on a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction taken on behalf of the employer.

(2.) The material facts are briefly as follows: There was a lay-off of workers in a section of the factory of the petitioners. The workers concerned were informed that they would not be entitled to compensation on that account as such lay-off was on account of the go-slow tactics adopted by a section of workmen in another section of the factory. Respondents 2 to 17 thereupon preferred a complaint to the Labour Court under S.33C(2) of the Act, claiming compensation for such lay-off as per the provisions of Chapter VA of the Act. On behalf of the management an objection had been raised that on account of the provisions of S. 25E (iii) of the Act, no such compensation would become payable, and therefore, the complaint under S.33C(2) would not be maintainable. On behalf of the applicants- workmen the fact that such lay-off was necessitated on account of the go- slow tactics of the workmen of some other section of the factory, had been denied. All the same, the preliminary objection had been pressed on the ground that a determination of the issue relative to the reason for the lay-off would properly fall within the scope of a reference under S.10(1) of the Act and, therefore, it would not be competent for the Labour Court to adjudicate upon it in a matter arising under S.33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court over-ruled the objection by the order impugned herein.

(3.) It is relevant to note that the matter had been once before brought up before this Court in WP.2776/72 and remanded with a direction that the Labour Court ought to give cogent reasons' for its order. It is thereafter the present impugned order came to be passed. A reference to this circumstance has become necessary in view of a contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that there has been no proper or satisfactory compliance with such a direction of this Court. The contention may conveniently be disposed of at this stage. The argument pressed before me is that the Labour Court has not discussed the matter in issue, after a proper study and analysis of the precedent cited on behalf of the parties. I have been taken through the order in question; and I do not see much justification for such a criticism. It is, however, unnecessary to pursue this aspect of the case any further, as I propose to examine the precedents relied on in the context of the main contention urged.