MANAGEMENT OF HACKBRIDGE HEWITTIC AND EASUN LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, 2ND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in C.P. No. 428 of 1984 and quash the order of the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras dated 31.12.1985 in C.P. No. 428 of 1984 under Section 33-C (2) read with Section 33-C (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the writ petition are:-

(3.) The petitioner Management alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the order of the Labour Court is contrary to law, totally opposed to the evidence on record and also vitiated by material errors of law apparent on the face of the record. It is also alleged that the Labour Court ought to have granted only the relief of back wages to the respondents 2 to 17 herein, after deducting the amounts Rs. 4,48,459.28 which had been already paid by the petitioner Management and the balance of 50 per cent of the wages from 15.5.1977 to 13.11.1979 as per the counter statement of the petitioner Management herein, before the Labour Court. It is also alleged that in the Award In I.D. No. 32 of 1978, the Labour Court has not granted to the respondents any other relief excepting back wages and as such it is alleged that the Labour Court ought not to have granted any other relief excepting the wages alone. It is also alleged that the Labour Court has failed to see that other reliefs would not call for decision under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is stated in the affidavit that respondents 2 to 17 herein filed the petition under Section 33-C (2) read with Section 33-C (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that except P.W.1 (Panneerselvam, the second respondent herein), no other person was examined to prove their case, that on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 alone, the Labour Court ought to have granted the claim of respondents 2 to 17, that at no point of time the petitioner Management raised the point that the respondents 2 to 17 herein should not file a single petition under Section 33-C (2) read with Section 33-C (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the petitioner Management contended before the Labour Court that after the so-called termination of respondents 2 to 17 herein they were all gainfully employed elsewhere and as such the question of claiming the entire backwages and also other attendant benefits will not arise. It is further alleged by the petitioner Management that as per the decision in Sadanand Patamkar V. New Prabhat Silk Mills, 1974 2 LLJ 52 which was confirmed in Andagalur Handloom Society V. Ramaswami,47 FJR 202 the burden was upon the workmen to prove that they were not gainfully employed during that period, that had the respondents workmen appeared before the Labour Court and given evidence, the petitioner Management would have an opportunity to cross-examine them and elicit materials in support of the contention of the petitioner Management. It is also alleged by the petitioner Management that the Labour Court has failed to follow the decision in Kandaswamy V. Sentharapatti Multipurpose Co-Operative Society,44 FJR 357 in order to mitigate the quantum of compensation when deciding the matter under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further stated that the respondents workmen are technically employed, that they ought to have approached the various employers for earning their livelihood and that they cannot say that they were sitting idle in their houses to claim back-wages and other attendant benefits from the petitioner Management claiming under Section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act It is further stated that when the matter was pending before this Court, the respondents workmen filed C.P. No. 535 of 1978 claiming the same relief which was dismissed by the Labour Court and only subsequent to this, they have filed C.P. No. 428 of 1984 which is the subject matter of this writ petition , and as such it is alleged that successive claim petitions are not maintainable. It is further stated that the Labour Court has wrongly calculated the backwages of the respondents workmen, especially when the calculation of backwages Ex. R.1, marked by R.W.1 was not disputed by workmen. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that the Labour Court, while analysing both oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner Management completely failed to appreciate Ex. R.1, the true copy of the salary working sheet, that the petitioner Management in order to prove the genuineness of Ex.R.1, has also filed the corresponding vouchers before the Labour Court and that this was specifically explained by R.W.1 in his evidence. The complaint of the petitioner Management is that the Labour Court has failed to consider this point. The petitioner further alleges that the Labour Court has erred in considering the relevant materials and accepting the contentions of the other side, discussing irrelevant facts. The petitioner further alleges that the claim for annual value bonus by the respondents workmen is not maintainable, that workmen cannot rely upon settlements under Section 18 (1) of I.D. Act to which the respondents are not parties. Referring to the decision in Major D. Aranha V. Universal Radiators, 1975 1 LLJ 254 the petitioner Management states that bonus cannot be claimed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the Labour Court has granted only the relief of backwages in I.D. No. 32 of 1978 and as such bonus will not fall under the term 'wages' as per Section 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further alleged that the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim of wages for festival holidays, wages for earned leave as well as casual leave and that the Labour Court has completely misconceived and misunderstood the provisions of both Provident Fund and E.S.I. Acts.