KAP STEEL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a company. It has resorted to lay-off its workmen from September 7, 1998. The fourth respondent-union has complained to the first respondent about non-compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). According to the union, there are more than hundred workers in the petitioner-company whereas the management contended that there are only ninety six workers, and, therefore, permission of the Government was not obtained for laying off the workers. Consequently a showcause notice as per Annexure-C, dated September 24, 1998, was issued to the management as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 25q of the Act. The management replied as per annexure-D narrating the reasons for laying off the workers and requesting not to take any penal action. Thereafter, the fourth respondent union has sought for recovery certificate. Accordingly, the impugned recovery certificate at Annexure-H had been issued. Pursuant to the recovery notice, recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 13,92,695 has been issued as per Annexure R-12 towards lay-off compensation payable to the workmen for the period September 7, 1998, to december 31, 1998. The recovery notice at Annexure-H is sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has not determined the contentions issued/raised by it with regard to the number of workers employed by the company and as to whether the workmen were justified in claiming lay-off compensation. While contending that the total number of workers in the petitioner-company is only 96, the petitioner has disputed the list furnished by the union. In other words, it is contended that without determining the total strength of workmen in the petitioner-company, the impugned recovery notice is issued only on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the documents.

(3.) MR. Sreevatsa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was issued to the petitioner-company only in respect of the claim for the period September 7, 1998, to October 31, 1998, and for the other period no notice was issued, and, therefore, the recovery certificate, and the demand notice are bad in law. Counsel further submits that as per Clause 17. 5 of the standing Orders, right is conferred upon the employer to lay-off the workmen for 45 days in a period of 12 months and the employer has the discretion to keep the employees laid off without paying any lay-off compensation or to retrench them, as provided under the first proviso to section 25c of the Act. of the Act. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay compensation beyond 45 days of the lay-off, to the workmen under Section 25c of the Act.