MANAGEMENT OF KUNJALAL, DEBIDUTT OIL AND ATTA MILLS Vs. R. LABHAYA, PRES OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Management of Kunjalal Debidutta Oil, Rice and Atta 'Mills of Fancy Bazar, Gauhati asking for a writ of certiorari quashing the award made by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam. The State Government by its notification dated the 30th January 1961 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called "the Act") referred the following questions to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:

(2.) THE main contention raised by Mr. for the Petitioner before as is that the having held that the provisions, of Sections 25C to of the Act do not apply to this industry as kers employed are less than fifty on the average per working day was not justified in awarding muff amount of compensation to the workmen Section 25C(i). The Tribunal has held that the pre sent case comes under Section 25A of the Act end that the provisions of Ss. 25C to 25E are not But the Tribunal is of the view that if Sections 25C and 25E are not attracted to this case that is another to the Tribunal examining the question deductions from the salary were justified when the question has been referred to the tCS RsSw -nal under Section 10. Unless the question of deduction is not an industrial dispute, the Tribunal were competent to go into that question. The Tribunal further held that in view of the notice by the Management, the Management in a way ed that at least the workmen were entitled to then compensation on the principles embodied another Section 25C of the Act.

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed "by Mr. tahin two cases South India Corporation v. Au Sirfxaate' Cashewnut Factory Workers' Federation, reported in, 1900 2 Lab LJ 103: (AIR 1960 Ker are Kohinoor Saw Mill Co. Ltd. ' v. State of window reported in : AIR. 1957 Mad 410. The facts cases are entirely different. Mr. Lahiri relies upon these cases in support of lass tions. In the first case the point which was before the Tribunal was that the factory being seasonal factory the provisions of Sections 25C to the were not attracted. The Tribunal in holding that the provisions were not granted the compensation by way of social justice. That principle was are accepted by the Supreme Court and it was held that the principles of social justice do not empower the Tribunal to go behind the provisions at the Act. There it was held that the claim of the workmen was for compensation by way of lay -off he we have already observed, in the present are them the correspondence as well as from the painted referred it does not appear that there was any claim of lay -off. What the workmen were obtaining was that the doduction from their salary was and justified. They were not to our mind, processing of any lay -off compensation within the processing of Section 25C. The terms of reference are very explicit of this point.