VENKATARAMA NAIDU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to have the order of the Labour Court. Madurai, dated 4th September, 1973, made in Claim Petition No. 142 of 1971, quashed in so far as the said Labour Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the closure compensation of three month's wages only under the proviso to Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, since the undertaking was closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer. In this case, the second resopndent-employer was the owner of a Petrol Bunk, and the petitioner was serving as a salesman therein. It is admitted that the agency for the supply of petrol to the second respondent was terminated, and that was the reason why the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. The Labour Court finds that the petitioner himself admitted that the agency was closed at Pudukottai and that was the reason why he was retrenched. The common case of the parties was that the petitioner was retrenched as a result of the termination of the agency given to the second respondent by the Petrol Company.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the closure of the Petrol Bunk of the second respondent under such circumstances cannot be said to be a closure on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer. I am unable to accept this argument. On the admitted fact that the Petrol Company terminated the agency of the second respondent, it clearly follows that the second respondent had to close down the undertaking and such closure is on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the second Respondent. However, the learned Counsel invites my attention to Clause (iii) of the Explanation to the proviso to Section 25-FFF of the Act. The relevant clause of the Explanation states that an undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this sub-section. The learned Counsel concedes that the present case will not fall within the scope of this clause of the Explanation, However, his contention is that even when the expiry of the period of the lease or licence was not taken to be an unavoidable circumstance beyond the control of the employer, the termination of the agency also should not be treated to be an unavoidable circumstance beyond the control of the employer. In my opinion, there is absolutely no justification for extending the provision contained in clause (iii) of the Explanation to a case not coming within the scope of that clause by way of analogy. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.