P S BOMMANNA CHETTIAR SONS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner employed the second respondent as his accounts clerk for a period of about five years. In June, 1967, the petitioner claims, the second respondent demanded certain amount by way of loan to go to Madras and to meet certain emergent requirements of his. This was refused, because the second respondent did not repay an earlier loan borrowed from the petitioner. Thereafter, it is said that the second respondent did not pay the money already due and abandoned the service with the petitioner. In or about 1969, the petitioner was confronted with a notice from the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, by which the second respondent demanded a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,002. 30 falling under three heads: (1) retrenchment compensation, (2) notice pay for unlawful retrenchment of service, and (3) bonus for the year 1966-67 during which year the second respondent admittedly served the petitioner. The Labour Court entertained the petition filed by the second respondent, went into the question whether the second respondent was retrenched or not, found that it was a case of retrenchment and awarded the compensation as asked for under the three heads as above. It is as against this award that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33c (2) in which the primary issue was whether the employee was retrenched by the employer. If, therefore, the Labour Court was incompetent to go into such a question, which is essentially a matter to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the problem arises, then the challenged award, in so far as it grants retrenchment compensation and notice pay, has to be quashed. On the third head, namely, the award of bonus to the second respondent, it is said that there is no proof that the second respondent did not receive the said amount, though his entitlement is shown in Ext. W-4 which evidences such a payment to other workers and also speaks of the practice prevailing in the petitioner-company. Contending contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent says that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to go into the question whether the case of retrenchment complained of by the employee or the story of abandonment spoken to by the management is true and find on the evidence one way or other. In this view, it is said that the entire award has to be sustained.

(3.) I shall immediately take up the third head of bonus. It is not in dispute that, under Ext. W-4, the petitioner-company paid bonus to all its employees. The name of the second respondent is also found in that; list. But the case of the second respondent is that he was not paid as pleaded. The onus lay on the petitioner to prove that the second respondent was paid the bonus, as his entitlement was reflected in Ext. W-4. This was neither attempted nor proved. The Labour Court accepted the case of the second respondent that the bonus to which he is entitled was not paid by the petitioner, though the other employees were paid, and, therefore, this part of the award, which granted bonus to the second respondent based on an appreciation of facts and evidence before it, cannot be disturbed.