Case: Ramakrishna Ramnath Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nagpur and Another

No such issue was even raised before the Labour Court. By issue 7 the appellant contended that the closure was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, and issue 6 related to the question as to whether the closure had resulted in the retrenchment of the applicant. These two issues, in our opinion, go to show that the fact of closure was not challenged but an attempt was made to establish that the closure was within the meaning of the proviso to S. 25-FFF(1) or otherwise that the closure was of such a type as did not really amount to retrenchment. 15. It was urged before us that there could be no closure because the appellant was merely protesting against irresponsible Government action and had no intention to close the business permanently.16. In our opinion, the express terms of the notice, preclude such contention. Nobody could say on the 1st July, 1958 that the Government would think fit to withdraw the notification and the first paragraph of the notice shows that under the general power of the employer to close down the business the appellant was informing all concerned that it was proceeding to do so as from 1st July, 1958. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to make a preliminary enquiry as to whether there had been a closure of the business and the text of the notice made the determination of the question quite a simple affair. 17. A fair attempt was made before us to contend that the finding of the Labour Court as to closure was perverse and that it was only a stoppage of work within the meaning of Standing Order No. 11 or a lock-out. As already noted, the question of lock-out was not even mooted when the issues were settled nor was any plea taken that there had been a temporary cessation of work under Standing Order No. 11. By the notice the employer gave the employees to understand that the factory would not function because the Government notification had made the running of it a financial impossibility. 18. In our view decision of this Court in Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. Their Workmen A.I.R., (1959) S.C.R. 19, does not help the appellant. There the management of the appellant gave notice that as a direct consequence of the continued and sustained illegal activities of the workmen and their preconcerted and pre-meditated acts by illegally keeping confined and forcibly resisting the exit of the staff and officers of the company in the administrative office building for many hours and the consequent refusal by the officers and supervisory staff of the company to carry on their work being reasonably apprehensive of their safety it had become impossible to run the factory. On this plea the company notified that there would be a complete closure of the factory with effect from 3rd October, 1967. There the real question was whether the Explanation to S. 25-FFF was applicable to the facts of the case and the court came to the conclusion that it was not possible to hold that the closure of the undertaking was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and as such the appellant was liable to pay compensation under the principal part of sub-s.(1) of S.25-FFF of the Act. On the facts of this case we find ourselves unable to hold that the undertaking was closed down on account of the unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of S. 25-FFF. 19. The contention that a workman has to establish that he had worked for 240 days in all the years for each year the compensation was claimed is without force. It is significant to note that by the first issue before the Labour Court the applicant was only called upon to prove that she had been in continuous service of the appellant for not less than 240 days immediately before the closure. In our opinion the issue had been properly framed. Section 25-FFF lays down that in order that a workman may claim the benefit of the provision he must establish that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before the closure. As soon as this is done he becomes entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of S. 25-F as if he had been retrenched subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2). Sub-section (2) of S. 25-FFF is not applicable to this case. Section 25-F(b) lays down that a workman cannot be retrenched unless he had been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Further no such workman can claim the benefit of the provision for compensation unless he can show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer. Under S. 25-B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed one years service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment. These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under S. 25-B has further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in the service of the employer for 240 days in the year. However the compensation to be paid to the workman under cl. (b) of S. 25-F is not to exceed his average pay for three months. In the case of the respondent it was found by the Labour Court that she had worked for eight years and but for the proviso to S. 25F she would have been entitled to four months pay.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]2. The amount in stake in this appeal is quite an insignificant one but the appeal has been brought as a test case for a number of other similar disputes9. The above provisions of the Act make it clear that the jurisdiction of a Labour Court is not confined to disputes specified in the Second Schedule but the said court has also to perform other functions as may be assigned to it. If there is a closure of a business within the meaning of S. 25FFF, a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before the closure becomes entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of S. 25F, as if he or she had been retrenches.13. The concluding portion of the above observations cannot be considered dissociated from the setting in which they were made. As was pointed out in the case of the Central Bank (supra) the examination of the claim under S.33C(2)may in some cases have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right. A mere denial of the fact of retrenchment would not be enough to take the matter out of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court14. In this case the written statement of the appellant before the Labour Court does not even show that there was any plea that there had been af or a. All that was said in paragraph 9 was that "the closure in accordance with the notice, i.e., 1st July, 1958, does not fall within the scope ofS.25FFF of theAct". No such issue was even raised before the Labour Court. By issue 7 the appellant contended that the closure was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, and issue 6 related to the question as to whether the closure had resulted in the retrenchment of the applicant. These two issues, in our opinion, go to show that the fact of closure was not challenged but an attempt was made to establish that the closure was within the meaning of the proviso to S.) or otherwise that the closure was of such a type as did not really amount to retrenchment16. In our opinion, the express terms of the notice, preclude such contention. Nobody could say on the 1st July, 1958 that the Government would think fit to withdraw the notification and the first paragraph of the notice shows that under the general power of the employer to close down the business the appellant was informing all concerned that it was proceeding to do so as from 1st July, 1958. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to make a preliminary enquiry as to whether there had been a closure of the business and the text of the notice made the determination of the question quite a simple affair. As already noted, the question oft was not even mooted when the issues were settled nor was any plea taken that there had been a temporary cessation of work under Standing Order No. 11. By the notice the employer gave the employees to understand that the factory would not function because the Government notification had made the running of it a financial impossibility18. In our view decision of this Court in Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. Their Workmen A.I.R., (1959) S.C.R. 19, does not help the appellant.19. The contention that a workman has to establish that he had worked for 240 days in all the years for each year the compensation was claimedis without force. It is significant to note that by the first issue before the Labour Court the applicant was only called upon to prove that she had been in continuous service of the appellant for not less than 240 days immediately before the closure. In our opinion the issue had been properly framed. Section25FFFlays down that in order that a workman may claim the benefit of the provision he must establish that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before the closure. As soon as this is done he becomes entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of S.25F as ifhe had been retrenched subject to the provisions of. (2).n (2) of S.25FFFis not applicable to this case. Section) lays down that a workman cannot be retrenched unless he had been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Further no such workman can claim the benefit of the provision for compensation unless he can show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer. Under S.25Ba workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed one years service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment. These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under S.25Bhas further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in the service of the employer for 240 days in the year. However the compensation to be paid to the workman under cl. (b) of S.25Fis not to exceed his average pay for three months. In the case of the respondent it was found by the Labour Court that she had worked for eight years and but for the proviso to S.25Fshe would have been entitled to four months pay.