MANAGEMENT OF KHILARI MEDICAL SYSTEM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award passed by the First Respondent in Claim Petition No.374 of 2002, dtd. 12/9/2013 thereby ordered to pay minimum wages, bonus and overtime wages with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) The Respondents 2 to 25 (hereinafter called as 'Workmen') filed Claim Petition under Sec. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act for computation of money value of the benefits entitled to them together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Petitioner is the management/firm (herein called as management) had not implemented various welfare legislations, which are provided under Labour Legislations. Therefore, the Workmen raised Industrial Dispute under Sec. 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. However, the conciliation failed and referred the Failure Report, dtd. 20/6/2001 and the same was numbered as I.D. No.84 of 2003. The Labour Court passed Award, dtd. 6/1/2004 in I.D. No.84 of 2003 and held that the closure of the management from 5/6/2000 is illegal and not justifiable. Further directed the management to reinstate the Respondents 2 to 25 herein with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits. The Workmen filed a Writ Petition before this Court to implement the said award. The Management also filed Writ Petition to challenge the said award. This Court, by Common Order, dtd. 27/9/2011 remitted I.D. No.84 of 2003 to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Labour Court dismissed the Industrial Disputes raised by the Workmen by Award, dtd. 25/7/2012. Aggrieved by the same, the Workmen filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No.27964 of 2014.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the management had manufactured the components of ophthalmic instruments and there were 45 Employees. The same was closed on 5/6/2003 after informing the closure to the concerned authorities and the Workmen by affixture in the closed door of its factory. The findings of the First Respondent are perverse, arbitrary without proper application of mind. The Claim Petition was filed by the Workmen to claim minimum wages, overtime allowances at double the rate of wages on minimum wages and the bonus on the minimum wages payable to them. Therefore, the entire claim of the Workmen are based on applicability of the minimum wages to them. The entitlement of minimum wages is not a benefit to be claimed under Sec. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Claim Petition itself is not maintainable. Further, there is no pleading in the Claim Petition that the alleged minimum rates of wages were applicable to the management and there was no clear adjudication as to their entitlement of minimum rates of wages. If at all the management failed to pay minimum wages, the Workmen ought to have invoked the provision under Sec. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, the alleged entitlement of benefits claimed, are Part 3 Management of Khilari Medical System v. Presiding Officer 265 yet to be decided and as such, the Claim Petition for computation of benefits are not at all maintainable by way of Claim Petition under Sec. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following Judgments: