IYPUNNY C K Vs. MADHUSUDAN MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition arises out of an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the petitioner to the labour court, Bombay. The petitioner was employed as a comptist on a monthly salary of Rs. 200 and other allowances. He served for about eleven years and resigned on 6 December, 1961 on medical grounds. His resignation was accepted and all his dues except gratuity were paid. He made this application alleging that as per the Cotton Textile Industry award he was entitled to be paid gratuity and requested the labour court to compute the amount of the gratuity payable to him. The labour court declined jurisdiction and hence this petition.

(2.) The contention of respondent 1 was that as the award was made under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and not under the Industrial Disputes Act, S. 33C(2) had no application. This argument was founded on the basic contention that the subject-matters of Ss. 33C(1) and 33C(2) were the same, i.e., both applied to cases of award, settlement or rights available under Chap. V-A of the Act.

(3.) Sri Narayanaswami contendeds in the first instance that under S. 33C(2) the money benefit could be computed only when such right is claimed under an award or settlement under the Act or by reason of the provisions of Chap. V-A of the Act, i.e., in other words, the section is applicable only to cases falling within S. 33(1). He relies on Lakshmi Mills Company, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Coimbatore [1962 - I L.L.J. 493]. This Court in Shree Amarsinhji Mills, Ltd. v. Nagrashna (M. N.) and others [1961 - I L.L.J. 581] held that "...... there is nothing in the language of Sub-section (1) which in any manner controls or affects the ambit and operation of Sub-section (2)";