ANTONY Vs. KUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner ran a grocery shop. He closed it down for the reason that he was a tuberculosis patient confined to a sanatorium. Dispute arose as to the amount of compensation payable to his workmen in terms of S.25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the petitioner, the closure of the business was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond his control and the proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.25 FFF applied, which meant that the workmen would get much less compensation than what they would otherwise get in case the main part of that sub-section applied. The workmen on the other hand contended that this was not a case coming within the scope of the proviso and they were therefore entitled to full compensation. The question was finally brought before the Labour Court by the workmen in terms of S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the disease of the employer, however serious, was not a matter coming within the proviso.

(2.) The question for decision is whether the business of the petitioner was closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, so as to attract the proviso. The legislative intent is clear from S.25FFF as to the compensation payable to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings. If an undertaking is closed down for what ever reason, every workman coming within the meaning of sub-s.(1) of that section is deemed to have been retrenched and he is entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of S.25F. Where however retrenchment has become necessary on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, it is specifically stated in the proviso to that sub-section that the compensation payable to the workman under clause (b) of S.25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. However, the explanation to the proviso contains certain specified cases which are excluded from the ambit of the proviso, thereby bringing them within the main part of the sub-section.

(3.) The language of the proviso has to be strictly construed so that the operation of the main part of the sub-section is not restricted beyond the legislative intent. It seems to me that the legislative intent is to limit the scope of the expression 'unavoidable circumstances' to such cases where the closure was for reasons connected with the business. Circumstances, however unavoidable and uncontrollable, may not attract the proviso unless they are relevant and related to the functioning of the undertaking. If the closure of the undertaking was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of an employer, but those circumstances are not connected with the functioning of the undertaking, although they are personal to him, such closure cannot be regarded as coming within the ambit of the proviso. An employer who is suffering from a serious disease such as tuberculosis is naturally not in a position to run his business. The cause of his personal difficulty was something which was beyond his control to prevent. Nevertheless, his disease is not a reason connected with the running of the business, but it is only personal to him. Closure of the undertaking in such circumstances shall not deny the workmen their full compensation.