P MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL CINEMA, DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the order dated July 8, 1982 passed in the Claim Petition No. 360 of 1981 on the file of the second respondent - Labour Court, Madras, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (Act XIV of 1947) claiming a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards service compensation and overtime wages was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner, in the affidavit in support of the writ petition claims that he was employed as Gate-Keeper in the Central Cinema, Dindigul, that he had put in about 20 years of service, that he was getting a salary of Rs. 150/- per month, that when he was arranging the benches in January 1981, he met with an accident as a result of which he sustained injury in the left leg which ultimately resulted in the amputation of the left leg below the thigh and that when he went after getting cured as above to work, the first respondent management did not allow the petitioner to work. The petitioner claims to have been turned out without being given work which necessitated, according to the petitioner, to file claim petition as stated above, on the ground that the termination of the services of the petitioner would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(3.) The petitioner claims that he was entitled to service compensation at the rate of 15 days pay for 20 years namely Rs. 1,500/-, that he was doing over time work for 4 hours for 3 years entitling him to a sum of Rs. 5,500/- on that account and that, therefore, he would be entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The first respondent-management contested the claim of the petitioner contending that the writ petitioner did not suffer any injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on January 4, 1981, that the petitioner did not sustain any injury during the working hours, that whenever the petitioner did overtime work, he was paid what was due to him then and there and there was no pre-existing right to claim any retrenchment compensation. Consequently the management contended that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.