M PENTAMMA Vs. ADDL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the order of the Additional Labour Court Hyderabad dated 23-5-88 in M P No. 297 of 1986 which is an application filed under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short "the Act.")

(2.) The second respondent was employed in the shop of the petitioner as a Gumastha, The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that shop was closed in 1982 due to death of the original owner Maduri Easwariah and that at that time, the second respondent was paid all the benefits due to him including gratuity. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that subsequently the shop was revived by the brother's son of late Maduri Easwariah and thereafter the services of the second respondent were requisitioned : that while in service the second respondent has taken a loan of Rs. 6 000/- and that when the petitioner wanted to recover the loan amount by making deductions from the secend respondent's salary the second respondent has absconded from service from March 1986.

(3.) The learned Presiding Officer of the Additional Labour Court upheld the contention of the petitioner regarding voluntary abandonment of service by the second respondent, Consequently the learned Presiding Officer disallowed the claim of the second respondent for retrenchment compensation. But the learned Presiding Officer however directed payment of notice pay of Rs. 425/- and gratuity of Rs. 9 775/~ making a total of Rs. 10 200/-.