BALARAM BALAYYA Vs. R K TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions arising out of the same set of facts and law, and from a common judgment of the Industrial Court, Bombay, challenge the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, dated 16th November, 1988, made in Appeal (IC) No. 168 of 1988, Appeal (IC) No. 169 of 1987 and Appeal (IC) No. 170 of 1987 and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE facts which are common to all the three writ petitions are : The first respondent in each of these writ petitions is a processing unit engaged in manufacturing activities in the Textile Industry in Bombay covered by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ). With effect from 23rd November, 1983, the workmen were not given any work when they reported for work at scheduled times and that they were refused work with an endorsement "nw" (No Work) made on their attendance cards. This situation continued for some time. Thereafter these four workmen petitioners sent letters of approach on 15th March, 1984 under section 42 (4) of the Act demanding that they be paid full wages for the period when they were not given work. There being no agreement on the dispute, these petitioners filed Application (B. I. R) No. 59 of 1984, Application (B. I. R) No. 60 of 1984 and Application (B. I. R) No. 61 of 1984 before the Labour Court, Bombay, alleging that the action of the first respondent in not assigning them work and turning them away from work amounted to a closure for which they were entitled to closure compensation equivalent to the full wages which they would have earned had they been assigned work during the relevant period. The first respondent contested the three applications. The Labour Court by three separate orders dated 30-9-1987 made in the three applications held that the applications could not be dismissed for want of approach letter within the prescribed period; that the first respondent had given `lay-off to the employees during the period from November 1983 to February 1984 by writing remarks `nw (No Work) on their attendance cards, which amounted to `lay-off as defined under section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Unfortunately, inspite of these clear findings, the applications of these petitioners were dismissed by taking the view that there was no allegation that the closure was an "illegal closure" within the meaning of section 98-A of the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under section 78 of the Act to grant compensation or wages and that their only remedy was to file applications under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The aggrieved petitioners filed three appeals, Appeal (IC) No. 168 of 1987, Appeal (IC) No. 169 of 1987 and Appeal (IC) No. 170 of 1987 challenging the orders of the Labour Court under section 84 of the Act before the Industrial Court, Bombay. The Industrial Court, by the impugned orders, dismissed the appeals and hence the petitioners are before this Court by these three writ petitions.

(3.) MR. Naik, learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent, contended that the argument raised by the first respondent before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court was that the quantum of compensation could not be uniformly fixed at the rate of 50 per cent, as provided under section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, but that, the Court had discretion to award such quantum of compensation after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and that it was unfortunate that the two courts below misunderstood the contention of the first respondent and dismissed the claims as not permissible under section 78 of the Act.