Appeal No 525 of 1964
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 25 1962 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No 360 of 1961
76 5 A section Bobde G L Sanghi and Sardar Bahadur for the appellant
Janardan Sharma for respondent No 1
H W Dhabe and A G Ratnaparkhi for the intervener
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah J
In this appeal by certificate against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 25 1962 the appellant is the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Co Ltd Akola and the respondents two of the workmen of the Mills
The respondents are claiming from the Mills compensation for lay off from March 5 1960 to October 22 1960
The proceedings were commenced by an application to the Second Labour Court Bombay under section 33C1 of the Act XIV of 1947
The Mills objected on various grounds including firstly that the Second Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the dispute fell to be tried under the CP  Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 1947 and secondly that the application under section 33C in any event was incompetent
The Second Labour Court held against the Mills on both the grounds
The Mills applied to the High Court of Bombay under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution but by the judgment under appeal their application was dismissed
It may be pointed out here that there were similar applications for com pensation for lay off by the other workmen of the Mills and on this preliminary point they were all heard together
In this Court only these two grounds were urged
The con tention on behalf of the Mills on the first ground was two fold
The Mills attempted to establish that the dispute could not be tried under the Central Act but only under the CP  Berar Act and further that even if the Central Act applied the calculation of the amount could not be made under section 33C of the as that required proceedings other than those contemplated by that section
The was passed in 1947 and was brought into force on April 1 1947
It is not disputed that it applied to the Textile Industry
The CP  Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 23 of 1947 came into force on June 2 1947 but only the first section was then brought into force
Later the remaining sections were brought into force by a notification dated November 20 1947 in all industries except the Textile Industry
From March 1 1951 the Act was also 76 6 made applicable to the Textile industry
In 1953 the was amended by Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 1953
The changes material to our purpose were the addition of two definitions and a new chapter in the Act
Previous to the Act there was an Ordinance which the Act replaced but as nothing turns upon the existence of the Ordinance we need not refer to it
The two definitions introduced in section 2 of the parent Act were  kkk lay off  with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means the failure refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the break down of machinery or for any other reason to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched  Explanation Every workman whose name is home on the muster rolls of the industrial establishment and who presents himself for work at the establishment at the time appointed for the purpose during normal work ing hours on any day and is not given employment by the employer within two hours of his so presenting himself shall be deemed to have been laid off for that day within the meaning of this clause Provided and section oo retrenchment 
The definition of retrenchment  need not be quoted here because no question has been raised about retrenchment in this case
Section 3 of the 1953 Amendment Act inserted Chapter V A headed Lay Off and Retrenchment
Section 25C gave a right to a workman to ask for compensation if laid off provided he fulfilled certain conditions
It is not necessary to go into those conditions here
Section 25J then provided as follows  25J Effect of laws inconsistent with this Chapter 1 The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any law including standing orders made under the XX of 1946  76 7 Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall have effect to derogate from any right which a work man has under any award for the time being in operation or any contract with the employer
2 For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State in so far as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they relate to lay off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
 In 1956 the was again amended by the Industrial Disputes Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1956
Section 23 of the Amending Act inserted section 33C which reads as follows  33 C Recovery of money due from an employer 1 Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement of an award or under the provisions of Chapter V A the workman may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrears of land revenue
2 Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money the amount at which such benefit should be computed may subject to any rules that may be made under this Act be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub section 1
3 For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit the Labour Court may if it so thinks fit appoint a commissioner who shall after taking such evidence as may be necessary submit a report to 76 8 the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case
 The powers of the Government under the above section admittedly have been delegated to the Second Labour Court Bombay
Section 31 of this Amending Act provides as follows 31
Act not to override State laws
1 If immediately before the commencement of this Act there is in force in any State any Provincial Act or State Act relating to the settlement or adjudication of disputes the operation of such an Act in that State in relation to matters covered by that Act shall not be affected by the  as amended by this Act
2 From these sections which we have quoted certain conclu sions indisputably arise
The first conclusion is that compensation for lay off can only be determined under Chapter V A of the 
This follows from section 25J2 as it is so stated there
The next is that the workmen are entitled under section 33C1 to go before the Second Labour Court to realise money due from their employers under Chapter V A
This is clearly stated in section 33C
The contention on behalf of the Mills however is that the does not apply to the present matter but the CP  Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act does
This argument is put in two ways
By one argument the application of the is sought to be evaded and by the second the CP  Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act is sought to be applied
We shall examine these two arguments in the same order
The attempt to oust the Central Act is based upon section 31 of the 1956 Amendment Act and the opening part of section 25J Section 31 can have no application because section 33C has been included for the purpose among others of enabling the workmen to claim any money due from their employers under the provisions of Chapter V A
This is expressly so stated in that section
Chapter V A is the only Chapter in which there is provision regarding lay off or compensation for lay off
The CP  Berar Act contains no provision either for the recovery of money or for compensation for lay off
It is thus obvious that 76 9 if a workman has a claim for lay off it can only come up for decision under the and indeed section 25J2 says so in express terms
The attempt to keep out the provisions of the  particularly Chapter V A and section 33C must therefore fail
The next attempt namely that the CP  Berar Act applies is also ineffective
It is pointed out that the preamble of the CP  Berar Act shows that it was an Act for the promotion of peaceful and amicable settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration that industrial disputes  means any dispute or difference connected with an industrial matter arising between an employer and an employee or between employers or employees and that industrial matter  means any matter relating to pay wages reward etc
It is submitted therefore that the dispute must come under the CP  Berar Act because of section 31 of the 1956 Amendment Act and section 25J of the 1953 Amendment Act already quoted
The argument is the last one in another form
This argument is fallacious at the very start because lay off and compensation for lay off are to be found only in Chapter V A of the 
There is no mention of lay off or compensation for lay off as one of the matters over which the CP  Berar Act has any jurisdiction
Next even if sections 31 and 25J save the application of the CP  Berar Act they do so subject to the condition that question of lay off must be decided in accordance with Chapter V A and section 33C clearly provides that a dispute for any money due under Chapter V A has to go before the appropriate Government or its delegate
Here the delegate is the Second Labour Court Bombay
The argument that this controversy is wrongly before the Second Labour Court Bombay is therefore entirely erroneous and must be rejected
The next contention is that the claim for lay off is not a claim for money due because calculations have to be made before the money due can be found
This argument has been considered on more than one occasion and it was rejected recently by this Court in Kays Construction Co P Ltd vs State of UP  Ors1
It is not essential that the claim which can be brought before the Government or its delegate under section 33C1 must always be for a predetermined sum
The Government or the Labour Court may satisfy itself about the exact amount and then take action under that section
In the present case the dates of lay off are known and each workmen will show to the Second Labour Court that he is qualified to receive compensation for 1  up
C165 6 770 lay off
That will be shown from the muster roll which the employer is required to maintain and it will then be a simple arithmetical calculation which in our judgment section 33C permits to be made
If there is any question whether there was lay off or not the Labour Court will decide it
This argument therefore has no force
The result is that the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs
The employers have
by prolonging this litigation on a preliminary point managed to avoid the trial of the real issue for a number of years and we hope that the Second Labour Court will now deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondents who were the workmen of the appellant applied to the Second Labour Court Bombay under section 33C1 of the  claiming compensation for lay off during a certain period
The appellant contended that  i the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the dispute fell to be tried under the CP and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 1947 and ii the application under section 33C was incompetent because it was not a claim for money due and calculations had to be made for ascertaining the money due
The Labour Court as well as the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
rejected the contentions
In the appeal to this Court
HELD  i The argument that the controversy was wrongly before Labour Court was entirely erroneous
Chapter V A of the  which was inserted by section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 1953 is the only Chapter in which there is provision regarding lay off or compensation for lay off
Though the CP and Berar Act applies to the textile industry it contain no provision either for recovery of money or for compensation for lay off and they are not matters over which the CP and Berar Act has any jurisdiction
Therefore if a workman has a claim for lay off it can only come up for decision under the 
Even if sections 31 and 25J save the application of the CP and Berar Act they do so subject to the condition that the question of lay off must be decided in accordance with Chapter V A Since section 33C provides that a dispute for any money due under Chapter V A has to go before the appropriate Government or its delegate and since the delegate is the Second Labour Court the respondents were entitled to go before the Labour Court to realise due from the appellant under Chapter V A 769 F ii It is not essential that the claim which can be brought before the Government or its delegate under section 33C1 most always be for a predetermined sum
769 G H Kays Construction Co P Ltd vs State of U P  Ors
  followed