VENKATARAMA NAIDU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of Ismail J. who was called upon to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai in C. P. No. 142 of 1971 and quash the same and afford relief to the appellant.

(2.) The appellant was admittedly an employee of the second respondent-firm which was carrying on business as a Burma Shell agent. The admitted case of the parties is that the Burmah Shell terminated the agency for the supply of petrol to the second respondent and by reason of such termination, the appellant's services were dispensed with. Consequent upon such dispensation of services of the appellant who was with the second respondent for a considerable number of years, he raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, as he was not satisfied with the payment of three months' average pay as if the closure or the suspension of the business by the second respondent was due to unavoidable causes. He filed a petition under Section 33-C (2) before the Labour Court seeking for quantifying such compensation in accordance with the law. The Labour Court was of the view that as the termination was the direct result of the non-supply of petrol which is the very raw material which was the subject matter of the commercial activity of the second respondent, the appellant was not entitled to any more compensation for such closure of the establishment other than the payment of three month's average pay. The matter was taken up under Art. 226 to a single Judge of this Court and he was also of the view that such closure was the resultant of unavoidable circumstances and that the appellant was not entitled to any more compensation as claimed.

(3.) Under the Industrial Disputes Act, it is open to the proprietor of an undertaking to close it down. Under Section 25-F if any workman were to be retrenched from any industry and if such workman has been in continuous service of the undertaking for not less than one year, then the employer is bound to pay such prescribed compensation as is mentioned therein. It is not necessary to quote the section and the quantum of compensation and the entitlement of the workman in such circumstances. It is unnecessary to do so because the undertaking in question was closed for the reasons that the Burmah Shell Agency which entitlement the second respondent enjoyed for a considerable time was suddenly withdrawn and that was the causa causans for the closure of the Undertaking as such. In those circumstances, the only Section in the Industrial Disputes Act which comes up for consideration would be Section 25-FFF which runs as follows: