THE MANAGEMENT OF ANDHRA LAUNDRY (PROPRIETOR R.A. MASILLAMANI) Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important and interesting question of law arises in these writ petitions namely whether the receipts passed by the erstwhile workmen to the management in full settlement of all their claims at the time of the closure of the business would estop them from claiming the full statutory benefits conferred on them under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The petitioner in all these writ petitions is the management of Messrs. Andhra Laundry. There was an industrial dispute between the management of the Laundry and its workmen, and the Labour Court, Madras passed an award, by consent of parties, in I.D. No. 32 of 1962 relating to demands for revision of pay -scales, payment of dearness allowance and for the introduction of a gratuity scheme. The management carried out the obligations undertaken by it in that award. However, in July, 1963, the management did not find it possible to continue the business and decided to close the Laundry. That was mainly because the proprietor of the Laundry was incapacitated to manage the business due to loss of vision of his eyes. Accordingly, the management issued a notice of closure dated 27th June, 1963 informing the workmen that it had decided to close down the business in accordance with Sec. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act with effect from 1st August, 1963 and that the workers would be paid all their dues in accordance with law on and from 30th July, 1963 during working hours. All the Workmen received their wages, retrenchment compensation and gratuity from the management. All the workmen passed individual receipts for having received the sums mentioned therein from the management of Andhra Laundry towards retrenchment compensation, gratuity and arrears of wages in full quit of all claims including reinstatement in view of the closing down of the Laundry from 31st July, 1963.

(3.) The very next day, the Tamilnadu Employees' Union sent a communication to the management informing it that the workmen had received their amounts under protest, that until they were paid their wages according to law they would offer satyagraha and picketing in front of the shop of the Laundry. There is ' no evidence that the Union carried out the threat as mentioned in its communication. But the erstwhile workmen filed claim petitions before the Labour Court, Madras, under Sec. 33 -C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming computation of the benefits of retrenchment compensation, gratuity and leave wages under the Act after giving credit to the amount received from the management just on the eve of closure of the business.