SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH Vs. KAMALA MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th April, 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition in limine.

(2.) The controversy arises, in the circumstances, which we briefly advert first.

(3.) Kamala Mills-respondent No. 1 is the textile industry and covered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short "Act of 1946"). There was a strike in the textile industry including Kamala Mills in the year 1982. As a result thereof, the services of the present appellants and the employees named in Exhibit "A" who were employed in the Art Silk Section of Kamala Mills were terminated. The termination of these employees resulted into reference under the Act of 1946. During the pendency of the said reference, Sick Industrial Companies special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short "Act of 1985") came into force and thereunder Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) constituted. As Kamala Mills was a sick company, the reference with regard to the said company was registered with the BIFR. During the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR, Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) entered into the Memorandum of Understanding on 21st October, 1992 with ala Mills. In the said settlement, the provision made in para 3 thereof was also made applicable to the workers of the Art Silk Department in respect whom the cases were pending in the Court. Pursuant to the said settlement, appellants and the other employees as set out in Exhibit "A" were benefit of gratuity as per Clause 3 but were not given any retrenchment compensation. These employees were also not given bonus for the year 1981 and salary for the seventeen days in the month of January, 1982. Constrained whereby, the aggrieved employees, all 43 in number, made application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the recovery of the due amount before the Labour Court. The said application was contested by the employer-Kamala Mills. The claimants in support of their case filed an affidavit of Maruti Ishwara Nalavade. He was not cross-examined by the employer. On behalf of the employer, Narayan Babaji Samari was examined. The Third Labour Court, Mumbai after hearing the parties by the order dated 23-9-1996, rejected the application made under Section 33C(2). The employees preferred writ petition which also came to be dismissed by concerned Single Judge by order dated 7th April, 1997 and hence the appeal.