PETLAD BULAKHIDAS MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAMABHAI BHIKHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a matter dealt with by the Labour Court and later on in appeal by the Industrial Court under the provisions of B. I. R. Act, 1946.

(2.) The Labour Court at Anand passed an order on 17-12-1992 in Application No. 809 if 1976 against which Appeal No. 4 of 1993 was filed in the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad and said appeal was disposed of by the Industrial Court on 20-4-1993. Needless to say that both the forums, the petitioner had lost.

(3.) The petitioner mill had entered into an agreement as per Annexure-A page 22 with the representative union. It is an admitted position that the parties are governed by the provisions of B.I.R. Act to the extent to which there are provisions in it. As a part of agreement arrived at between the management and union, on 4-5-1976 the respondent herein - Ramabhai Bhikhabhai was to be sent home because the third shift was closed and the plant in which he was working as Mukadam was also to be closed. As per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 said Ramabhai Bhikhabhai was to be paid gratuity for the period for which gratuity was admissible for different years and towards retrenchment compensation, he was to be paid Rs. 110.00 for each year's service. Against this part of the agreement, an application under Sec. 78 read with Sec. 79 of the B.I.R. Act came to be filed before the Labour Court, Anand. In the aforesaid proceedings before the Labour Court the applicant in his deposition at Exh. 21 has set out the facts of his salary and on that basis demanded that the retrenchment compensation should have been much more than what has been provided for in the agreement.