BENARAS HALL Vs. LABOUR COURT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur in Industrial Dispute No 24 of 1962.

(2.) The said award was passed on a reference by the Government of Andhra Pradesh that an industrial dispute existed between the workman, Shri K.V. Ramaniah, represented by the Nellore District Shops and Establishments Employees Union and the management of the Benaras Hall, Nellore, the employers. The petitioner herein is the management of the Benaras Hall, the employers. The workman, Shri K.V. Ramaniah, the second respondent in this Writ Petition, it is said, absented himself of his own accord and so, his services were terminated by the management on 12-12-1961. The said workman thereafter complained to the President of the Nellore District Shops and Establishments Employers Union. The said complaint was signed by K.V. Ramaniah and four others, G.V. Subba Rao, K. Rajagopal, P. Ramamurthy and V. Venkata Krishniah. On the report of the Labour Officer to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, a reference was made to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matters referred were, (1) Whether the termination of services of Shri K.V. Ramaniah is justified and (2) if not, to what relief is he entitled The Labour Court, by its award, gave a finding against the management and directed reinstatement of Ramaniah with back wages.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the management has contended in support of this Writ Petition that the award is unsupportable. In the main, he has argued that it is not proved by evidence that there was an industrial dispute which could be referred under the Act. He has also urged that, even if there was an industrial dispute, the award of buck wages in full was wrong as, in his counter. K V Ramaniah has stated that he had been employed elsewhere from 1-4-1962 as a salesman on a salary of Rs. 50 per month and as such his earnings as such salesman should be deducted from back wages due to him otherwise.