SHYAMSUNDER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has prayed for issuance of writ to quash the order dated 28-1-1985 of the Labour Court, Amravati, by which respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were held entitle to recover the amount or retrenchment compensation for the services rendered by them from the petitioner within two from the date of order.

(2.) The brief facts are that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed separate applications under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act" for recovery of compensation from the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner has closed his establishment and has not paid compensation as laid down under section 25-FFF of the Act. The petitioner gas offered them compensation equivalent to three months wages, which they did not accept. Accordingly a direction was claimed to pay each of the respondent workmen the compensation as envisaged by section 25-FFF of the Act. The petitioner defended the claim by admitting that he had closed down his establishment, but denied his liability to pay the compensation under section 25-FFF on the ground that the establishment was closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the proprietor of the press and hence three months wages offered to each of the workmen was just and proper. The reason as disclosed was that the proprietor of the press was suffering from blood pressure, more commonly known as hyper-tension and being under constant physical care and attention, had to close down the business.

(3.) The Labour Court accepted the fact that the proprietor of the press was suffering from the aliment complained of, but found that the closure of the business was not on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond his control and hence there was no justification in offering the compensation to the respondent workmen at the rate of three months wages. Consequently the petitioner was directed to pay the full compensation in accordance with section 25-FFF of the Act by the common order dt. 23-1-1955. It is this order, which is impugned in the petition.