NIRMALA JOSHI Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 5 December 1964, (copy annexure D to the petition) of the presiding officer of the labour court, Delhi (respondent 1 to the petition), directing the petitioner Miss Nirmala Joshi, to pay to her ex-employee, Jai Gopal Kapur (respondent 2), compensation amounting to Rs. 2,638 in all, split up as follows: Rs. Item (a): Earned wages for 21 days. . . 268 Item (b): Wages, in lieu of unavailed leave. . . . . . . . . 395 Item (c): One month's wages in lieuof notice. . . . . . . . . 395 Item (d): Retrenchment compensation-tion. . . . . . . . . 1,580 ______ 2,638 ______ Items (c) and (d) were awarded in view of the provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1917 (14 of 1947) (hereafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE facts as found by the labour court, and which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not for the purpose of this petition disputed before me, are as follows:

(3.) SO far as item (a) Is concerned, there is no dispute at all about it, because Sri Yogeswar Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has conceded that for the period of duty performed by the respondent before 21 May 1964, he was entitled to earned wages for 21 days. With regard to Item (and), that IB, wages In lieu of unavalled leave, Sri Yogeshwar Dayal's contention was that the respondent was not entitled to such wages as a matter of right, but he declared that the employer was prepared to let him have, as a matter of grace, these wages In lieu of unavalled leave, BO It Is not necessary to enter upon this item also.