RAJYALAKSHMI Vs. REG ASST COMMISSION FOR LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) it Appeal No, 891/75 is directed against the order made by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 7017/76. He confirmed the award of the Labour Court by his order. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under. K. K. Motor Bus Service, The Rajyalakshmi Bus Service and the Kamalamma Bus Service had in their employment 15 workers. It appears that in 1970 the workmen were not given work. Therefore, they started agitating the dispute as to their wages. Conciliation proceedings wore instituted. The management stated before the Conciliation Officer that they did not terminate the services of the 15 workmen though they were not given any work nor were, they paid their wage's, the management had not actually terminated the services of the workmen by serving a notice upon them. However, for the first time in the conciliation proceedings the management stated that they had removed the names of the 15 workmen from their muster roll with effect from 17-12-1970 because they had beer? ebsentt from duty for more than ten days.

(2.) The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer reported accordingly to the Government. The Government found that there was an industrial dispute between the management and the workmen and, therefore, referred it to the Labour Court, Guntur, under the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Before the Labour Court it was contended by the management that the services of the 15 workmen had not been terminated by them and that therefore reference which was made was invalid because there was no industrial dispute bet ween the parties. The contention which the workmen raised was that their services had been terminated. The Labour Court recorded the conclusion fhat the reference was invalid because there was no industrial dispute as the workmen had not made a demand for reinstatement and the management had not refused to accept it. The Labour Court also went into the question in the alternative of retrenchment compensation payable to these workmen and recorded its finding. Ultimately, the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that it was invalid and made its award accordingly.

(3.) That award was challenged by the workmen in W.P. 7017/74. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition concurred in the finding recorded by the Labour Court that since there was no demand by the employees and refusal by the management the reference was invalid. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. He also quashed the alternative finding which the Labour Court recorded on the question relating to retrenchment compensation payable to the workemen. It is that order which is challenged by the workmen in this writ appeal.