MASTER SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. IBRAHIM HABIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Patel appears for Mr. K.S. Nanavaty,advocate for the petitioner Co. In this petition, this Court has issued rule on 16th December, 1988. While issuing rule, this Court granted interim stay against the order passed by the labour court, Rajkot on 2 9/11/1986. The rule has been served upon the respondents but none has appeared for the respondents.

(2.) In the present petition, the orders passed by the Labour Court Rajkot in Recovery Application No. 1167 of 1980, 1176 of 1980, 1177 of 1980 and 1187 of 1980 have been challenged by the petitioner Mill Co. Said recovery applications were filed by the applicants workmen under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the ID Act" for short). It was the case of the applicants before the labour court that the applicants were working in the opponent mills CO. and on 5/10/1976, the settlement was arrived at between the Textile Labour Association which was the representative union for the Silk Industry in Bhavnagar local area. Subsequently, another settlement was arrived at between the Master Silk Mills Kamdar Mandal which was the representative union and the opponent Mills Co. According to the said settlement, if any workman tenders his resignation through the union, said workman was to be paid the retrenchment compensation and gratuity and the union should agree to allow the opponent Mill Co. to allot to the workman 4 looms. According to the applicants, the applicants tendered their resignation and, therefore, they are entitled to the retrenchment compensation and gratuity but the opponent mill Co. has not paid the same and, therefore, the applicants had filed the recovery application claiming the amounts of gratuity and retrenchment compensation. Before the labour Court, the opponent Mill Co. filed the written statement and raised the contention that the labour Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the said application. Even on merits, it is denied that the applicants worked for a period as alleged and further contended that the opponent has not allotted the work to the workman of four looms and that the applicants are not entitled to the retrenchment compensation and gratuity. During the pendency of the said recovery applications, the parties have not led any oral evidence and the matters were adjourned from time to time to enabling the parties to arrive at some settlement but the settlement was not possible and the labour Court, Rajkot has, ultimately, passed the order below Exh. 9 after hearing both the sides and determined the amounts due to the respective workmen. Said order of the labour Court was challenged by the opponent Mills Co. before this Court by filing writ petition and this Court had remanded the matter back to the labour Court with a direction to hear the parties on the basis of the documents already on record. Said matters were, thus, remanded on the representation of the representative of the applicants with a direction to pass reasoned and speaking orders after hearing the parties.

(3.) Before the labour Court, the petitioner Mill Co. raised two preliminary contentions/objections. One was with regard to period of limitation and the another was that the amount of gratuity cannot be ordered to be paid under the provisions of section 33(C)2 of the ID Act.