JAGANNATH BHAGWANDAS SHRIVASTAV Vs. HARISH THADANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the three petitioners, whose application before the Labour Court under section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,400/- each, by way of notice salary, retrenchment compensation and bonus for three years and leave with pay for 14 days was rejected by that Court on account of the existence of a dispute as to whether the petitioners were the employees of the employer concerned or not.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows : the petitioners claimed that they were working with the respondent No. 1 - Evergreen Trades and Agencies (Exports) as Ironers since 18-3-1980 and their services were terminated on account of closure of the factory due to fire with effect from 14-3-1983. According to the petitioners, they approached the respondent No. 1 for the legal dues amounting to Rs. 8,400/- each on account of notice salary, retrenchment compensation, bonus, leave wages etc. As the same was not paid, the petitioners approached the Labour Court under section 33c (2) of the Act for recovery of the same. The respondent No. 1, on getting the copy of the complaint, filed a written-statement wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioners were never employed by it in its employment and, as such, question of payment of any amount as alleged did not arise. Respondent No. 1, therefore, prayed that the applications under section 33c (2) should be rejected on that count itself.

(3.) THE Labour Court considered the controversy is regard to the maintainability of the claim of the petitioners. It found that there was a dispute regarding the very fact of the petitioners being employees of the respondent No. 1. That being so, no claim can be entertained under section 33c (2) of the Act untill the question whether they were the employees of the respondent No. 1 was decided in their favour by a Competent Court in a proper proceedings. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court dismissed the applications of all the three petitioners.