MANAGEMENT OF GAU PRESS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management of the Gauhati Press (Pi Ltd., the petitioner herein, impugns the award dated 19-6-80 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gauhati in Reference Case No. 20 of 1978. The petitioner-company employing about 19/21 workers, stated to have been facing financial difficulties since early part of the year 1977. issued a lay-off notice dated 31-8-77 purported to be under Sec. 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which read

(2.) The workmen moved a petition before the Labour Court under S. 33-C (2) of the Act. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 13 of 1978, alleging, inter alia, that the ground of lay-off was improper and the notice, therefore, invalid. The petitioner-company filed written objection stating that the number of workmen employed was far less than fifty and the petition was not maintainable. Meanwhile the workmen also raised an industrial dispute and moved the Government for making a reference to the Labour Court and the State of Assam made a reference under clause (c) of sub-section 111 of Sec. 10 of the Act by Notification No. GLR. 244/76/22 dated 28th June. 1977 for adjudication of the following points :

(3.) Registering the reference as Misc. Case No. 20 of 1978 the Labour Court issued notices inviting objections but proceeded on the footing of the objection already filed in Misc. Case No. 13/78, both the cases being taken up together. During the enquiry the workmen examined two witnesses, namely. Shri Gopal Chandra Nath and Shri Khargeswar Talukdar as witnesses Nos. 1 and 2. respectively, while the management examined Shri Debendra Kumar Das, Assistant Managing Director of the petitioner-company. It transpires from the evidence that there were about 19/21 workmen at the relevant time and they had to be laid-off due to financial difficulties faced by the management as well as for want of a suitable substitute Managing Director. The learned Labour Court, Gauhati found, inter alia, that only 19 workers claimed compensation; that the press was facing financial difficulties and was no longer functioning; that the lay-off was mala fide and it was not a lay-off as contemplated in Sec. 2 (kkk) of the Act; and that the management was not justified in laying off the workmen. Accordingly the Labour Court awarded : "The workmen concerned in this reference who were laid-off will get wages from the management at the rate at which they were drawing in the Gauhati Press just before lay-off for the period in which they remained unemployed after the alleged lay-off. But workmen concerned in this reference will not get wages for the period in which they are employed elsewhere. Those who have entered into employment elsewhere after the lay-off drawing wages equal or more than what they were drawing in the Gauhati Press will not get compensation from the management. But the workmen drawing less than what they were drawing at Gauhati Press being employed elsewhere after the lay-off will get only the difference from the management." In other words, it awarded that the workmen concerned in the reference would get their wages at the rates prevailing at the time of lay-off for the period for which they remained unemployed in consequence of the lay-off; and the workmen who were employed after the lay-off but earned equally or more would not get any compensation; but those employed at lower rates of wages would get the difference.