DHANALAKSHMI MILLS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order of the first respondent dated March 18, 1996, passed in C.P. Nos. 141 to 366 of 1995, 600 to 603 of 1995 and 7 and 8 of 1996, computing the relief payable to respondents Nos. 2 to 221 by way of wages for the period July 1, 1993, to April 30, 1994. Respondents Nos. 2 to 221 filed C.P. Nos. 141 to 366 of 1994, 600 to 603 of 1995, 7 and 8 of 1996 on the file of the first respondent claiming wages for the period July 1, 1993, to April 30, 1994, bonus for the year 1992-93 and interim relief.

(2.) The said claim was resisted by the petitioner contending that the application filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 221 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was not maintainable, that the closure of the 'B' mills and the preparatory section of the 'A' mills was inevitable, that when the Commissioner of Labour by his order dated September 16, 1992, rejected the petitioner's application seeking permission for closure, a review petition was filed before the State Government and by G.O.(D) No. 250, dated April 6, 1993, the State Government, while passing orders in the review application, referred the issue for grant of permission of closure to the Special Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 4 of 1993, that an award has been passed in I.D. No. 4 of 1993 on November 28, 1994, granting permission to close the 'B' mills weaving and the preparatory Section in the 'A' mills while directing the petitioner to provide alternate employment to all the 'B' mills employees in the 'A' mills, that when alternate employment was offered even earlier, respondents Nos. 2 to 221 refused the said offer though about 139 workmen and staff of the 'B' mills agreed to get re-deployed in the 'A' mills by accepting a memorandum of understanding dated December 9, 1992, and, therefore, respondents Nos. 2 to 221 were not entitled for the amounts claimed in the application preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

(3.) By the impugned order dated March 18, 1996, the first respondent rejected the claims of respondents Nos. 2 to 221 in regard to the claim for bonus for the year 1992-93 as well as the interim relief. However, the first respondent has computed the relief payable by way of wages for the period July 1, 1993, to April 30, 1994, to respondents Nos. 2 to 221 as claimed by them. The first respondent held that the award in I.D. No. 4 of 1993 granting permission for closure of the 'B' mills and the preparatory Section of the 'A' mills in the award dated November 28, 1994 could not be taken to mean that such permission for closure was to take effect from the factual date of closure, namely, July 20, 1992, and, therefore, having regard to the relief granted in the earlier claim petitions covering the period July 20, 1992, to June 30, 1993, and in view of the fact that in the interim order of this Court in the writ petition challenging the earlier order of the Labour Court stating that respondents Nos. 2 to 221 cannot take any coercive steps to recover the relief granted in those earlier claim petitions, there was no impediment in computing the relief claimed in the present claim petitions. Significantly, though the first respondent referred to the offer of the petitioner providing alternate employment under exhibit M-6 to all the 'B' mills workmen in the 'A' mills, there was no finding rendered on the said aspect. On the maintainability of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the first respondent, by referring to exhibit W-2 dated July 13, 1993, an advice letter of the Secretary of Labour, held that since, as per the said advice, the workmen could work out their liability under Section 33-C(2) of the Act or under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and since in the earlier claim petitions the relief has been granted for the period July 20, 1992, to June 30, 1993, by order dated March 31, 1994, this application could be maintained.