MANAGEMENT OF VALLIAPPA TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. S RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has called in question Annexure "g" by which the Labour commissioner and specified authority Under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,62,929. 88 paise as closure compensation and an amount of Rs. 83,108/- for the difference amount in terms of closure compensation.

(2.) THE case of the workmen is that the petitioner-Industry was closed w. e. f. 16. 6. 1999. Despite of the closure, the workman have not been paid any retrenchment compensation and in this regard they filed an application Under Section 33-C (1 ). Interalia, seeking for issue of a certificate for recovering the said amount as arrears. In their application they claimed total amount of Rs. 2,84,644. 88 paisa. similarly they also claimed the difference of the amount in respect of another applicant to the tune of Rs. 83,108/ -.

(3.) IN response to the said application, the Labour Commissioner called upon the Management by his letter dated. 9. 6. 2000 requesting them to furnish their reply. The Management sent a preliminary reply dated 3. 8. 2000 stating therein that it has paid the closure compensation to all the workmen as required Under Section 25 (o) Sub-section 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by duly calculating the compensation and contended that the allegation of the Union that the workmen have not been duly paid is one without any basis. The Management filed one more explanation on 12. 2. 2001. Interalia, contending that the union has no locus standi to file an application claiming the balance of the amount due to the workmen in respect of the period for which the workers were on illegal strike and lockout and indiscipline and violence resorted to by the workmen and suspension of manufacturing operations. It is also contended that Section 25 (O) (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable. It is also contended that the apprentice scheme was discontinued w. e. f. 6. 10. 1994. On these allegations, the Management contested the claim of the workman.