ABDUL SATTAR REHMANBHAI Vs. JULEKHABI RAHIMAN DARYAWARDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by the Employers challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, II Labour Court, Kolhapur, directing them to pay Rs. 40/- to each of the employees under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Initially these matters were placed before the Single Judge of this Court---Daud, J., who by his order dated 17th of September 1986 referred the following question to the Larger Bench :

(3.) Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that under section 39(1) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Beedi Act), provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are made applicable to the matters arising in respect of every industrial premises. The expression Industrial premises is defined by section 2(i) of the Beedi Act. The word establishment is also defined by section 2(h) of the Beedi Act. Though the expression establishment has wider meaning, application of the ID Act is restricted to the industrial premises only. Therefore by necessary implication, the I.D. Act, 1947 will not apply to other premises or establishments. In this view of the matter, so far as the home workers are concerned, they are not governed by the provisions of the I.D. Act. Hence the application filed by them under section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act is not maintainable. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of Joshi, J., in Ramanbhai Patels case. We had no advantage of hearing any arguments on behalf of the respondent-employees since they have chosen to remain absent. Shri Patel, learned AGP submitted that the Government is not concerned with the controversy raised, though according to him the view expressed by Joshi, J., requires reconsideration.