ALUMINA MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. RATNA CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the aforesaid Writ Petitions are analogous inasmuch as in both of them the order dated August 24, 2000 (Annexure-7 in OJC 8267 of 2000 and Annexure-2 in OJC 12027 of 2000) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) is the subject matter of challenge. The Petitioner in O. J. C. 8267 of 2000 seeks to challenge that part of the impugned order by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner has rejected the claim for payment of notice pay by the employer. In OJC 12027 of 2000 the Petitioner-employer questions the validity of the impugned order by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner directed payment of ex-gratia to the workmen. Both the cases were heard together with the consent of counsel for parties and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) PARTIES in both the writ petitions are the same, but are arrayed differently. Therefore, for the sake of convenience we, in this order have referred Alumina Mazdoor Sangh as 'the Union', National Aluminium Company Limited as the 'principal employer' and Ratna Construction company as the 'labour Contractor'.

(3.) BECAUSE of failure of the Labour Contractor to settle the legitimate dues of the Union, industrial dispute was raised pursuant to which the Assistant Commissioner took up the matter for conciliation. At this stage labour contractor filed Writ Petition bearing OJC No. 1777 of 2000 in this Court for quashing of the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. This Court by order dated March 31, 2000 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to determine the dues of the workmen within one month from the date of communication of the order. The principal employer was also directed not to release the amount of the workman on account of the disputed notice pay, ex-gratia payment, etc. Pursuant to the said direction, the Assistant Labour Commissioner took up the matter and by the impugned order rejected the claim of the Union for one month notice pay in lieu of the notice. He also directed payment of ex-gratia @ 8. 33 per cent to the workmen. The Union, as already indicated, in its Writ Petition (OJC No. 8267 of 2000) contends that the order rejecting the claim of notice pay is illegal. The Labour Contractor in its OJC No. 12027 of 2000 submits that the direction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner for payment of ex gratia to the workmen is unjustified.