LONETREE ESTATE Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An industrial dispute between the petitioner, the management of Lonetree estate, and its workmen represented by the second respondent, one of the labour unions in the estate, was referred by Government to the first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, for adjudication. Issue No. 2, one of the matters in dispute, related to the payment of unemployment compensation to the workers for four days from July 1, 1958. Following a strike by the members of the staff, the management laid off the workmen for four days from July 1 to July 4, 1958, both days inclusive. There was an attempt at conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and a memorandum of settlement was drawn up between the management and some of the workmen represented by two other labour unions of the estate. Under Rule 59 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the memorandum of settlement had to be signed by the representatives of the unions specified in that behalf. It was common ground that such representatives of the second respondent did not sign the memorandum of settlement, although it is said, that one Sivan Pillai representing the second respondent, gave a letter afterwards, accepting the settlement. The tribunal held, that this was not sufficient compliance with Rule 59 and the contention of the management that the tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the memorandum of settlement as final and conclusive, cannot be sustained.

(2.) The tribunal also came to the conclusion, that the denial of employment to the workmen during the four days was a lock-out and not a lay off. It was urged on behalf of the management, that this conclusion of the tribunal constituted an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The learned government pleader for the tribunal maintained, that the above conclusion was on a question of fact and cannot be canvassed in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, to quash the award to the above extent. Three principal grounds on which the tribunal reached its conclusion are, firstly, that the management had not proved, that the denial of employment to the workmen was for any of the reasons specified or indicated in the definition of 'lay off' in S.2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, secondly, that the closure of work was brought about by a notice which is marked before me as Ext. Rl and thirdly that such closure was in pursuance of Rule 18 of the petitioner's standing orders and was not a lay off.

(3.) A 'lay off' is defined in S.2(kkk) as follows: