BHARAT COLLIERIES LTD., OWNERS OF EKRA, ENGINEERING WORKS, BANSJORA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT CHOTA NAGPUR, RANCHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed by the employer against the award given by the Labour Court, Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi on the 80th Sept., 1966, in two oases under S. 830 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) sent to the said Court by the State Government in two notifications, dated the 22nd. June, 1965, and the '28th Aug. 1965. The cases were heard together, and disposed of by one award as the .points in controversy were identical. These two writ applications also were heard together and are disposed of in this judgment.

(2.) The petitioner-employer is the Ekra Engineering Works Bansjora (hereinafter referred to as the factory). It is situated in the amidst of the colliery area in Dbanbad. It is not denied that it is somewhat in the nature of a feeder industry to the collieries, and its main function is to overhaul, repair and refit the machinery's and other equipment used in the collieries. The management intimated to the workers union of the factory on the 7sh Aug. 1964, that it would be closed with effect from the 10th Aug. 1964. In the notice to the workers union no special reason wa3 given for the closure of the factory, and, as is to be expected, there was acute controversy between the management and the workers as regards the retrenchment benefits payable to them in consequence of such closure. The management contended that the closure was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond its control and that, consequently, the workmen were entitled to retrenchment compensation only under the proviso to sub. section (i) of section 25FFF of the Act. The workmen and their an a, however, challenged the correctness of this reason for closure and urged that they were entitled to full retrenchment compensation 25F of the Act, and that the management was not entitled to avail of the proviso to :3ub-section (i) of section 25PFF, The State Government then issued two notifications dated the 22nd June 1965, and the 28th Aug. 1965 which were practically identical 1969 Lab.I.C. 90. in terms. I am quoting below one of the said notifications : "Government of Bihar,

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid two notifications the Labour Court started two cases under section 38C (2) of the Act, received the. written statements of the employer and the workmen (through their trade union leaders) and after taking oral and documentary evidence held that the main reasons for the closure were the financial difficulties of the employer, and that even if there were some other reasons, they were all due to the fault of the management. Heoae it held that the proviso to subsection (i) of section 25FFF was not attracted and that the management wa3 bound to pay fail compensation under section 25F of the Act. It was stated before the Labour Court that some of the workmen had accepted the retrenchment compensation offered by the management, and had also filed applications before the Labour Court stating that they were no longer interested in the case. In spite of this conduct of these workmen the Labour Court held that they were entitled to full compensation and hence directed that every workman should be paid compensation under section 25F after deducting the sum already received by him.