SPENCER AND COMPANY LIMITED Vs. LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Secretary of the Spencer and Company Limited (the company) terminated the services of their two probationary employees K. Lakshminarayana (KL) and Muralikrishnamacharyulu (KM). They were working in the Vijayawada branch of the company. The two employees, thereupon, approached the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, 15 of 1966 (Shops Act), for reinstatements and by separate application under the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 (Under S. 33C) for wages to be paid to them. The shops authority on 26/07/1978 directed the company to reinstate the employees. On further appeal by the company, the Labour Court at Guntur on 4/07/1979, directed the company to pay salaries and a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 each was ordered towards compensation instead of reinstatement. That Court as a Court under Act 14 of 1947, considered the claim of wages under six heads (a) Bonus, (b) leave wages, (c) house rent allowance, (d) attendance allowance, (e) special allowance and (f) increments. As respects (a) the company and the employees agreed that the bonus be paid as per the award pending at Madras before the Industrial Tribunal. It is represented the award was passed and bonus will be paid to the employees : under (b) KL was ordered to be paid Rs. 2,272-10p. and KM was paid Rs. 2,302-30p. Under (c) the allowance at Rs. 20.00 per month was ordered on December 1, 197 7/05/1978 to the employees. Under (d) the two were ordered at the rate of Rs. 15.00 per month from December 1, 197 7/05/1978 : Under (e) and (f) the claim of the two employees was totally rejected. The company and the employees assail the finding of the Labour Court under Shops Act and under Act, 14 of 1947, in these group of cases. The order of the Labour Court under the Shops Act where compensation is ordered, the order is attacked both by the company and the contestants on different grounds.

(2.) The Labour Court exercised its discretion under Clause (2) of S. 41 of Shops Act and passed compensation order. That clause invests in the Labour Court the power to direct an employee to be reinstated with or without wages and in suitable cases, in the alternative, may direct even compensation or accord such relief in the circumstances fit to be ordered.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the company argued that the companys branch at Vijayawada was closed for they ceased to have business agency at Vijayawada. The two employees were probationers. The Labour Court had regard to these circumstances. Notwithstanding the circumstances, it is argued, by the company compensation was ordered to be paid. This plea, the learned Counsel though attempted to argue, but at the debate, on a consideration of the relevant circumstances, he did not press for the same. The learned Counsel for the employees argued that the normal and natural relief was to have reinstated the employees, but, such relief was denied to them. It is in this regard, the Counsel stressed, the company is an All India Company. The company has branches all over India. These two employees should have been reinstated at any place other than at Vijayawada, therefore, the two should have been reinstated.