MATHEW GEORGE Vs. LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Ext. P6 order issued on an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, for short). Petitioner is the Managing Director of a private limited company, who is the respondent in Ext. P6. The management establishment is a dealer of Steelage Industries Limited, Mumbai, dealing in safe, strong room door, lockers and allied products. Admittedly, the petitioner had a branch office at Kozhikode, under which respondents 2 and 3 were said to have been employed. On the alleged closure of the establishment, respondents 2 and 3 raised a dispute with respect to the denial of employment, in which notice was issued by the Deputy Labour Officer, as is evidenced at Ext. P2. Obviously, respondents 2 and 3 did not pursue with the proceedings under Ext. P2 and filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2) before the Labour Court, Kozhikode numbered as C.P.7 of 2010 which led to the passing of the impugned order at Ext. P6.

(2.) PETITIONER 's contention against Ext. P6 is that, the Labour Court could not have decided the issue under Section 33C(2) of the Act, since, the claim necessarily involved an adjudication as to the status of respondents 2 and 3 and as to whether the respondents are entitled to retrenchment compensation. Learned counsel for the party respondents would, on the other hand, contend that, the closure of the branch office at Kozhikode, having been admitted by the management, the entitlement to closure compensation under Section 25FFF is a statutory right, which the respondent -workmen could agitate under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

(3.) THE admitted facts are that, respondents 2 and 3 were attached to the Kozhikode branch office of the petitioner establishment. The party respondents, who are the claimants before the Labour Court, claim that they were employed as Office Assistants and Service Technician respectively by the management. The management contended that the second respondent was the Manager of the branch office at Kozhikode and the third respondent was an independent service technician, who was engaged for the after sale service carried on by the management. It is also the admitted case that, the third respondent had sought for resignation by Ext. P1, in which, however, the management directed continuance presumably to tide over the exigency of no other Service Technician being available. The closure of the branch at Kozhikode is admitted, but, however the management's specific case is that, the third respondent cannot claim any closure compensation, since, he had admittedly resigned from the services and the second respondent, being the Manager, could not have raised a claim, assuming the status of a workman under the Act. In any event, the second respondent was asked to report to the office of the petitioner at Ernakulam and on her refusing to do so; she has obviously abandoned employment; a voluntary act. The second respondent's contention against that is that, the management did not substantiate such claim by production of any document before the Labour Court, Kozhikode.