LAWS(MAD)-1960-8-24

ARUNA METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. LABOUR COURT

Decided On August 03, 1960
Aruna Metal Industries Appellant
V/S
LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in I.D. No. 1 of 1958, on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and quashing the award dated 30th June 195S passed therein, in so far as it directed the reinstatement of Ramachandran in the petitioner's services.

(2.) THE petitioner, Aruna Metal Industries, is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of barss and copper utensils. On 1st November 1955, the petitioner entertained one Ramachandran to work in the factory as a cooly. Sometime thereafter, the Inspector of Factories, evidently in the course of the inspection of petitioner's factory saw the worker and felt a doubt as to whether he was an adult, adolescent or a child. Section 67 of the Factories Act prohibits the employment of young children in the factories. Section 68, however, permits a child who has completed 14 years of age or an adolescent to work therein, if a certificate of fitness has been granted to him under Section 69; Section 69 provides for the issue of a certificate of fitness to a young person. If in the opinion of the surgeon the young person had completed his fourteenth year and is also physically fit he should certify him as fit for work in the factory as a child.

(3.) AS stated earlier, the Labour Court held that, at the time of discharge, the worker was more than 18 years of age. It also held that the general notice calling upon the worker to submit proof of his age was not sufficient and that the management should have given further opportunity to the worker before discharging him, particularly when the certificates granted by the surgeon were not decisive. These findings would have been sufficient to adjudicate on the reference. But the Labour Court proceeded further and stated that the management could not be said Jo have acted mala fide or with ulterior motives in discharging the worker. On these findings, the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate Ramachandran in service but without back wages as the employer acted bona fide.