K V MOHANAN Vs. KILLICK NIXON LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally. Rule returnable forthwith. On 23rd February 2011, the learned Counsel had accepted for listing the matter for final hearing at admission stage.

(2.) The orders dated 25.4.2006 were complied by Respondent No. 1 till the notice dated 23.6.2006 was issued. They did not comply the same for the subsequent period. The Petitioners felt, that by non-payment of wages on the due dates, the Respondent committed breach of order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Industrial Court which amounts to an offence punishable under section 48(1) of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. This gave rise to Complaint (ULP) No. 132 of 2006 and consequently, process was issued against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This order of issuance of process was challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Revision Application (ULP) No. 250 of 2006, which was dismissed by the Industrial Court by the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2007. The Review Application No. 8 of 2008 was moved by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before Labour Court challenging maintainability of said complaint. However, the learned Judge, Labour Court rejected said Misc. Application on 7.8.2008. This was challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by revision under section 44 of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act being Petition No. 138 of 2008 and the Industrial Court by its order dated 17.12.2009 allowed the Petition of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed Criminal Complaint No. 132 of 2006.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company, 1976 32 FLR 170 the employees are entitled to compensation of lay off period and therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the Respondent No. 1 could not have disobeyed the initial order dated 25.4.2006 and should have faced the prosecution for non-compliance thereof.