SWASTIK MANUFACTURERS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these two writ petitions is a factory in Secunderabad.

(2.) The second respondent in each of the cases is a workman in the factory. They filed two petitions, M.P. 88/75 and M.P. 89/75 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming monentary benefits to which they were entitled. Their case was that they were retrenched from services by an order dt/ 17-1-1975 which was given effect to, from 20-1-1975. The petitioner in M. P. No 88/75 claimed retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1575/-. leave salary of Rs. 168/-, Rs. 210/- towards minimum bonus for the year 1974-75, Rs. 213/-as unpaid Dearness Allowance and Rs. 14/-being unpaid wages for two days during the month of January 1975. The Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1998/- made up of Rs. 1575/ as retrenchment compensation, Rs. 210/- as bouns, Rs. 2l3/-towards Dearness Allowance from April 1974 to January 1975 and rejected the rest of the claim. In M P. 89/75 the petitioner claimed Rs.l445/-towards retrenchment compensation, Rs. 136/-towards leave salary, Rs. 170/-being the minimum bonus for the year 1974-75, Rs. 117/-as Dearness Allowance for the period April 1974 to January, 1975 and Rs. 5-50 being unpaid wages for 18-1-75. The petitioner herein resisted the petitions before the lower court mainly on the ground that the workman had not been retrenched but they left the services of their own accord. According to the petitioner, the company was in serious financial difficulties in the middle of 1974 due to which its activities came to a stand-still and even the salaries of workmen could not be paid. The company could not also pay the arrears of Provident Fund, Employees State Insurance remittances. It had exhausted all its resources from which it could procure money. At this stage Sri R. Suryanarayana Rao who is also an employee of the responent company and who is the present Managing Director of the company offered to finance the company and save it from going into liquidation, thereby also helping his co-workers. In this regard he had discussions with all the workers and it was agreed by all the workers including the petitioners before the Labour Court that they would leave the services of the company of their own accord provided they were paid the arrears of bonus and salary immediately and arrangements were made to pay the gratuity and the management agreed to the said proposals and all the workers were paid accordingly. The petitioner in M.P. 88/75 was paid Rs. 1926-59 on 1-2-1975 and passed a receipt. The said amount was received by the said workman in full and final settlement of all his claims. The petitioner in M P.No. 89/75 was similarly paid Rs. 1683.11. In these circumstances it was submitted that there was no retrenchment but workmen left the services of their own accord and hence the workmen concerned were not entitled to retrenchment compensation or any other amounts under Sec. 33-C (2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.

(3.) The Labourt Court held that the petitioners had been retrenched from service and this was not a case where they themselves left the services of the company of their own accord. The Labour Court then proceeded to determine amounts under the various heads to which the workmen were entitled and awarded the benefits as referred to earlier. The petitioner herein has filed these two writ petitions praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Labour Court in each of the two petitions in M.P.No. 88 and 89 /75. Sri A, Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Sec. 33-C (2) would be attracted only if there was a retrenchment of the workmen by the company and it would have no jurisdiction if the workmen left the service of their own accord, As this very question on which the jurisdiction depends is a matter of dispute, the tribunal ought not to have entertained the petition under Sec 33-C (2) and should have rejected it as not maintainable. The tribunal should have held that the proper remedy of the workmen concerned was to raise a dispute about their retrenchment and have the matter referred to the Industrial Tribunal. It was only if in such proceedings the Industrial Tribunal held that it was a case of retrenchment, the workmen concerned would be entitled to approach the Labour Court for payment of the benefits under sec. 33 C (2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. The Labour Court had only jurisdiction to compute the benefits to which the workmen would be entitled and it had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether there was a retrechment entitling them to such benefits. Sri Krishnamurthy further contended that even if the Labour Court had jurisdiction to go into the question whether the workman had been retrenched or whether the left the service of their own accord, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it should have held that there was no case of retrenchment. The finding of the tribunal is contray to law in as much as it is opposed to the clear admission of the workmen and other evidence in the case.