H N HABIB AND BROS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the Receiver appointed by the Court in O. S. No. 219 of 1972 on the file of the sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli. That was a suit for administration of the estate of two brothers, Nazrulla and Habibulla. One of the businesses which the brothers carried on was the business of drapers and tailors. During the pendency of the suit Nazrulla died and his legal representatives were brought on record. In the suit some of the parties wanted the said business to be closed on the ground that it is incurring loss. But this was resisted by the other parties who wanted the continuation of the business pending suit. The Court, however, felt that since loss is being incurred in the business, closure of the business will be in the interest of the parties and directed retrenchment of the persons employed in that business. The petitioner, who is the Receiver appointed in that suit, carried out the directions of the Court by closing down the business and terminating the services of all the persons employed in the said business.

(2.) ALL the employees, whose services have been terminated, filed claim petitions under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming (I) closure compensation, (2) unpaid salary for the period in service, and (3) gratuity. The petition was resisted by the Receiver.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed, the Receiver raised the only objection that the petition under Section 33c (2) will not lie against him as leave to sue the Receiver has not been obtained from the Court. The Labour Court, without considering this question, proceeded to consider the employees' claim on merits and by its award dated 11th June, 1974, it held that since admittedly there is a closure of the business, the claimants are entitled to closure compensation. As regards the arrears of salary the Labour Court directed the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of salary for the period already worked. As regards the gratuity also the Labour Court directed the payment of gratuity for the periods in service according to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said award of the Labour Court has been challenged before this Court in the writ petition.