Summary
Certain goods which are essential for the manufacturing process in the appellant's mill were detained by the Excise Authorities for non- payment of Central Excise Duty and consequently there was a disruption in the functioning of the appellant's mill compelling the appellant to stop the working of the mill for the period from March 24, 1964 to June 10, 1964.
The Respondent-Sangh demanded that the employees who were affected by the said closure should be paid their wages for the aforesaid period. As the said demand was not accepted by the appellant, the respondent filed an application before the First Labour Court, praying for the payment of full closure compensation to the affected employees.The Labour Court held the appellant liable to pay closure compensation to the employees affected by the closure of the mill for the aforesaid period at the rate of 50% of the basic wages and dearness allowance.The Industrial Court partly allowing the appeal of the appellant, directed the appellant to pay closure compensation to the employees affected by the closure for the period from March 24,1964 to June 10, 1964 at the rate of 50 per cent of their basic wages and dearness allowance and further directed that where the employees had been sick and enjoyed sickness benefits for all the days or had been on privilege leave or enjoyed leave with wages for all the days or secured alternative employment for any period during the closure, such employees would 420not be entitled to any closure compensation for such days, but in respect of such days half of the wages payable to Badli workmen in lieu of the said three categories of workmen would be paid to the Badli workmen equitably.In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that as the closure had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Standing orders 16 and 17 due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to its employees for the period of closure including payment to the Badli workmen.Allowing the appeal in part,^HELD: (1) The order of the Industrial Court in so far as it directs payment of compensation to the Badli workmen is set aside and, except that, the rest of the order of the Industrial Court is affirmed. [427F-G]2.(i) Sub-s. (4) of Sec. 42 read with the provision of s. 78(1)(a)(iii) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946, makes it manifestly clear that an employee is entitled to challenge the refusal by the company to pay compensation of the closure and claim such compensation before the Labour Court whether or not such closure was due to circumstances beyond the control of the company, as enumerated in Standing order 16. The Respondent-Sangh therefore, was entitled to make the application before the Labour Court claiming compensation for the period of closure even though such closure was made in accordance with the provisions of the Standing orders 16 and 17.[425E-H]2.(ii) The Standing order 16 provides that such closure can be made without notice and no compensation would be required to be paid in lieu of notice. It is clear from Standing order 16 that it does not contemplate that when there has been a closure on account of some unavoidable circumstances, no compensation is required to be paid to the employees. Therefore, the order of the Industrial Court directing payment of compensation to the employees of the appellant for the above period of closure is upheld. [426A-C]3. Badli workmen get work only in the absence, temporary or otherwise, of regular employees, and that they do not have any guaranteed right of employment. Their names are not borne on the muster rolls of the establishment concerned. Indeed a Badli workman 421has no right to claim employment in place of any absentee employee. In A any particular case, if there be some jobs to be performed and the employee concerned is absent, the Company may take in a Badli workman for the purpose. Badli workmen are really casual employees without any right to be employed. Therefore, the Badli employees could not be said to have been deprived of any work to which they had no right and, consequently, they are not entitled to any compensation for the closure. It may be that the Company may not have to pay closure compensation to the three categories of employees as mentioned by the Industrial Court, but that does not mean that the company has to pay compensation to the Badli workmen in place of these categories of employees.[426D-Il]Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Appollo Mill Ltd.,[]960] 3 SCR 231 distinguished.See the full content of this document
Extract
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. VS. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh
PETITIONER: PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.Vs.RESPONDENT: RASHTRIYA MILLS MAZDOOR SANGHDATE OF JUDGMENT01/08/1986BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J)BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J)ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)CITATION: 1986 AIR 1514 1986 SCR (3) 419 1986 SCC (3) 588 JT 1986 18 1986 SCALE (2)118ACT: Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946, s. 42(4) and 78(1)(a) (iii)-Closure of textile mill on account of circumstances beyond control of the company-Regular employees-Whether entitled to "Closure compensation"-Badli employees-Not entitled .JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 768 (NL) of 1973 From the order dated 27.9.1972 of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay in Appeal (IC) No. 133 of 1971.G.B. Pai, O.C.. Mathur, S. Sukumaran, Miss Meera Mathur and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant. E Naunit ...
See the full content of this document