AMASAMMA Vs. A RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the workmen calling in question the legality and validity of the Award dt. 20.12.2010 in IID 17 -32/2004 of the Labour Court, Mysore, Annexure - G, partially allowing the claim petitions to the extent of payment of terminal benefits such as notice pay, closure compensation, leave encashment and gratuity, in accordance with law while denying reinstatement.

(2.) PETITIONERS filed claim petitions before the Labour Court, invoking Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', whence they were registered as IID 17 -32/2004, respectively, for the reliefs of reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits on the allegation of illegal termination from service by order dated 11.12.2003. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioners was that the respondent -employer failed to comply with the requirements of Section 25 -FFA of the Act by not seeking prior approval of the State Government before the closure of the Hotel industry carried on by the respondent -proprietor since there were more than 50 persons employed monthly on an average, in the 12 months preceding the termination from service. Those petitions were opposed by filing statement of objections denying the allegations, while conceding the fact of closure of the Hotel industry which led to the termination of the service of the petitioners, amongst others, and that total number of workmen employed on an average every month during 12 months preceding the termination from service was less than 50 in number and therefore, Section 25 -FFA of the Act had no application. In the premise of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues:

(3.) PETITIONERS when examined as WW1 to 15 marked Exs.W1 to W13, while the Managing Director of the second party No.1 i.e., 1st respondent was examined as MW -1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.M1 to M7.