BHARATIYA KAMGAR SENA Vs. INDABRATOR, LTD., AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Kochar contended that having regard to the provisions of S. 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of S. 2sF thereof cannot be invoked unless the workmen are laid off for the period stated in S. 25, Sec. 25C inter alia allows the employer to lay off his workmen. However, it is provided that the employer must pay for all days during which the employee is laid off, except for such weekly holidays as may intervene, compensation which shall be equal to fifty per cent of the total of the basic wages and dearness allowance that would have been payable to him had he not been so laid off. The first proviso shows that if a workman is laid off for more than forty-five days during any period of twelve months, then no such compensation shall be payable in respect of any period of the lay-off after the expiry of the first forty-five days, if there is an agreement to that effect between the workman and the employer. In other words, after the expiry of the period of forty-five days, in the absence of an agreement between the workman and the employer, the workman would be entitled to his basic wages and dearness allowance in full. Sri Kochar relied on the second proviso to S. 25C which inter alia provides that it shall be lawful for the employer in any case falling within the first proviso to retrench the workman in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 25F at any time after the expiry of the first forty-five days of the lay-off and when he does so, any compensation paid to the workman for having been laid off during the preceding twelve months may be set off against the compensation payable for retrenchment.

(2.) It must be borne in mind that the provisions of S. 25F are independent of the provisions S. 25C. Sec. 25F does not even refer to S. 25C. It is clear that by enacting the second proviso the Legislature has made a provision for retrenchment of the workmen after the expiry of a period of forty-five days of lay-off. This does not mean that unless lay-off is resorted to the provisions of S. 25 F are not attracted. This interpretation gets support also from the definition of the word "lay-off" in S. 2(kkk) of the Act. The said definition of "lay-off" itself refers to the workman who has not been retrenched. Therefore, lay-off is not a condition precedent for resorting to the provisions of S. 25 F by the employer.

(3.) As far as the other points which were urged before the Tribunal are concerned, we do not see any error in the view taken by the Tribunal. In the result, we see no merit in the petition. Petition stands dismissed.