AMARSINHJI MILLS LTD Vs. NAGRASHNA M N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a question of some importance affecting the jurisdiction of the labour court under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners are textile mills operating at Wankaner in the Saurashtra. Respondents 2 to 6, at all material times, were workmen employed by the mills. According to the petitioners, there was failure of the power plant in the mills between 23 December, 1957 and 26 February, 1958, and the mills had to be closed for a period of about 27 days in shift A and for about 26 days in shift B. During those days, respondents 2 to 6 and some other workers had presented themselves at the premises of the mills but were not given any employment owing to the failure of the power plant. Respondents 2 to 6 claimed that they were entitled to lay-off compensation and that position not having been accepted by the mills, they preferred applications to the respondent 1 praying for ascertainment of the amounts payable to them as such compensation for the period during which the mills had been closed. Their contention was that they were laid off and were entitled to lay-off compensation under the provisions of the Act. The mills, the petitioners before us, raised various contentions in opposing those applications. It was contended that the respondent 1, the labour court, had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications. It was further contended that the claims were illegal and improper. It was also contended that S. 25C of the Act which relates to lay-off compensation is ultra vires the Constitution as being repugnant to Art. 19(1)(g). The labour court allowed the applications and ordered the mills to pay the five workmen certain amounts mentioned in the order. It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner-mills on this petition before us. The question, as we have already mentioned, is of some importance. The respondents to the petition have not appeared before us, and we have not had the advantage of any arguments on their behalf. But Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner-mills, has fairly and fully stated before us all the aspects of the matter and we are thankful to him for the manner in which he has done so. He has also drawn our attention to certain decisions which would seem to go against his clients.

(2.) The first contention urged before us by Sri Gandhi is that the labour court was in error in construing S. 33C(2). In order to appreciate the argument, it is necessary to set out the provisions of S. 33C :

(3.) It is argued by counsel that the respondents 2 to 6 should have approached the Government under Sub-section (1) of S. 33C, and were not entitled to go to the labour court under Sub-section (2) of S. 33C. Reliance has been placed on the words "or under the provisions of Chap. VA" in Sub-section (1). Reliance has also been placed on the words "any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money" in Sub-section (2). It has been urged that the words "any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money" cannot and do not include any money claim. It is also said that Sub-secs. (2) and (3) must be read together and so read, Sub-section (2) must be understood to refer only to benefits which are other than monetary benefits but which may be computed in terms of money. The right of a workman to claim compensation for being laid off is recognized in S. 25C of the Act. In the petition before us, it has not been disputed that and could not be disputed that the workmen were entitled to compensation for being laid off. The arguments is confined not to the merits of the claim but to the jurisdiction of the labour court.