R NARAYANASAMI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C. P. No. 55 of 1963, a petition by a worker claiming lay-off compensation under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A prayer for wages of Deepavali holidays was also added, but that is not now the subject-matter of the writ petition. The subject-matter of the writ petition is a claim to lay-off compensation under Sec. 2 (KKK) of the Act for the period 15-10-1962 to 5-2-1963, and amounts to Rs. 165. The management is the proprietor of the branch of the Lakshmi mills at Palladam. It has also got a mill in Coimbatore. At Palladam, there are two units one a unit spinning cotton and the other a unit where there were about 12 weaving frames at the time of the alleged lay-off engaged in weaving staple fibre into textile materials. The practice at that time was to get "roving bobbins" from coimbatore for use in the weaving frames at Palladam. There were about 73 workers engaged in Palladam in this weaving unit. The management published a notice on 15-10-1962 in the following terms:

(2.) CLEARLY the terms of this notice would mean that a scheme was under way for shifting the preparatory machines at the Coimbatore branch of the mill engaged in making the roving bobbins from Coimbatore to Palladam, so that the preparation of roving bobbins might thereafter be done at Palladam itself, and thereafter the bobbins used on the frames for the weaving work. Apparently, the notice conveyed to the workers that some time would be taken for making the necessary shifting of the machinery and therefore work has to be stopped on the Staple Fibre unit. In the course of the evidence, the Manager of the management added another reason in the following way. Lakshmi Mills had been given a licence for extending their splindlage upto 24000 spindles for the Staple fibre unit. It was formerly having 5400 spindles in that unit, and therefore began to erect fairly elaborate machinery for this purpose. This work could not be completed, and the licence which gave them permission to extend upto 24,000 spindles had also expired on 15-10-1962. But this reason was not given in the notice afore-mentioned. (2a) The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the lay-off in this case did not satisfy the tests prescribed in Sec. 2 (KKK) of the Act. The relevant portion of that section is in the following terms:-

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Kairbatta Estate v. Rajamanickam, has interpreted the definition of the word "lay-off" in Section 2 (KKK) of the Act. It had held that words "any other reason" occurring in the definition should be a reason which is allied or analogous to the other reasons specified in the definition. In other words, an interpretation ejusdem generis should be given to the words "any other reason". The Labour Court thought that in the present case there was a closure of the Staple Fibre Unit and as a consequence it would not come under the definition in Sec. 2 (KKK ). The learned counsel for the management appearing before me, Sri Narayanaswami, does not support the conclusion of the Lower court, about a closure. Obviously, there was no closure. There was only a postponement of the working in the spinning unit for the reason mentioned in the notice, viz, the time taken for the transfer of the machinery from Coimbatore to palladam for preparing the roving bobbins at Palladam for preparing the roving bobbins at Palladam for preparing the roving bobbins at Palladam itself instead of at Coimbatore. Even assuming that the expiry of the licence also caused lay-off, it is found from the evidence of the management's witness that the work could be resumed on an oral assurance given by the Textile Officer that licence would be renewed. Therefore, there is no question of any closure of the business. It was only a postponement of the working of the unit on account of some temporary supervening factors, whether it be the necessity for shifting a particular type of machinery from Coimbatore to Palladam, or the expiry of the licence and the time taken either for its renewal or getting an oral permission from the authorities directing the work to be continued pending formal renewal of the licence. The several specific reasons given in Sec. 2 (KKK) appear to include reasons like those mentioned above, which led to the suspension of the work in this case. One may also look at the supply of readymade "roving bobbins" as the material with which work on the spinning frames at Palladam could be carried on. It was the failure of supply of this material comprising of roving bobbins for a short period, that led, according to the notice to the stoppage of the work. If the reason given in the notice can be considered as the sole reason, that would be ejusdem generis with the other specific reasons mentioned in the definition of lay-off in Sec. 2 (KKK ). Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was some time between the expiry of the licence and the obtaining of the oral permission to resume work pending the issue of a formal licence, that would be a period in which the employer was unable to give employment to the employees for a reason, which will also be ejusdem generis with the specific reasons in Section 2 (KKK ). It is not denied that the workman in this case continued to be shown on the rolls, of the workers in the establishment of the employer in this case.