Case: M/S:Modi Food Products Co. Limited Vs. Shri Faqir Chand Sharma &amp; Others

1. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and owns a factory called Modi Oil Mills in the district of Meerut. The respondents are workmen employed in the Mills. The business of the Mills consists in the Manufacture of oils and paints. On 12-7-1954 the management put up the followingis hereby given that due to non-availability of groundnut seed and neem seed at the parity with the ruling prices of the groundnut oil and neem oil, the Management is reluctantly compelled to close the Groundnut Crushing Section and Neem Section till the next groundnut season and thus the workers in the attached list are surplus and their services are laid off with effect from 14th July,thus affected, shall be paid compensation according to Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, subject to conditions laid therein. It is further notified that the time of the attendance as provided in S. 25 (D) and (E) shall be 10 A. M. for all the laid off workers.Pursuant to this notice, 142 workmen mentioned therein, being the respondents in this appeal, were laid off fromOn 26-7-1954 the workmen acting through their Union sent a notice to the management demanding full wages for the period of lay-off on the ground that it was unjustified and illegal. The management denied these allegations, and refused the demand. This being an industrial dispute as defined in S. 2(k), Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947, in the ordinary course, proceedings would have been taken with reference thereto under the provisions of thatthere was at that time another industrial dispute between the parties pending final adjudication. That dispute had been referred under S.Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Regional Conciliation Officer Meerut. He held pronounced his award, and against that, both the parties had perferred appeals to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and they were pending at the date of theIndustrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 48 of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, contains special provisions with reference to certain disputes which might arise between parties, when there is already pending adjudication between them another industrial dispute. They are Ss. 22 and 23, which are asDuring the period of thirty days allowed for the filing of an appeal under S. 10 or during the pendency of any appeal under this Act no employer shall -(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such appeal, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the filing of such appeal, or(b) discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such appeal, save with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal.23.Where an employer contravenes the provisions of S.22 during the pendency of proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner to such Appellate Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the complaint as if it were an appeal pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall pronounce its decision there on and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.On 24-8-1954 the respondents filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under S. 23 of the Act. Therein, they alleged that the lay-off was notbona fide,because the ground given therefor, namely, non-availability of groundnut and neem seeds at parity with ruling prices was not true; that further in view of pendency before the Labour Appellate Tribunal of an industrial dispute between the parties, the lay-off was in contravention of S.22 (a) of the Act, and they accordingly prayed that they might be awarded by way of compensation full wages for the entire period of theappellant contested the claim. It contended that the non-availability of groundnut and neem seeds as mentioned in the notice was true, and that the lay-off wasbona fide.It also claimed that S.22 (a) of the Act had no application to the dispute, as the notice distinctly state that the workmen would be paid compensation as provided in S.25-C, Industrial Disputes Act as amended by Act 43 of 1953. It also contended that under that section compensation was payable only for the first 45 days at the rate mentioned in the body of the section and not for any period subsequentTribunal held that the lay-off was justified. It further held on a construction of S. 25-C that the workmen were entitled to half the basic wages and dearness allowance not merely for the first 45 days but for the entire period, and that as the appellant did "not observe the provisions of that section ", there was an alteration of the conditions of service within S.22 (a) of he Act. It accordingly awarded compensation for the whole of the period at 50 per cent. of the basic wages and dearness allowance. Against this decision, the management has perferred this appeal by special leave.

Reasoning:
We are of opinion that both these contentions arecontention rests on the supposition that the conditions under which workmen could be laid off are conditions as to their service, and that when the employer lays off workmen without proper grounds therefor, it is a violation of the conditions of service within S. 22 (a) of thequestion is one of some importance, but it is unnecessary to express any opinion onmust, therefore, decide the question on the footing that the only condition which the parties might be taken to have agreed to is that the lay-off should be for adequate grounds and for a reasonable period. On this question, there is a clear finding in favour of the appellant. TheTribunal has found that groundnut and neem seeds were not available at parity prices, and that for that reason, the work had to beis not likely that businessmen would cut their profits to spite the workmen. The period of the lay-off was expressed to be until the next groundnut season, and we have been told that the season for groundnut begins sometime in November-December. In fact, all the respondents have been re-employed in relays from September onwards, and by the first week of December all of them had been absorbed. On the Finding of the Tribunal that the lay-off was justified, it follows that the application of the respondents under S. 23 of the Act was liable to be dismissed on the ground that there had been no contravention of S.22appellant does not dispute the right of the respondents to compensation, and, in fact, they were informed by the very notice dated 12-7-1954 under which they were laid off, that compensation would be paid to them in accordance with S. 25-C. It is as regards the quantum of compensation payable under that section that the parties are disagreed. It will be remembered that the lay off commenced on 14-7-1954 and was to continue until the next groundnut season and that the workers were actually absorbed in batches from September, and that by the first week of December, they had all of them been employed. There was thus one continuous lay off for periods varying from 57 to 121already stated, there is no dispute that the compensation payable for the first 45 days has to be determined in accordance with proviso (a) to S.proviso would apply only if the workmen had been paid compensation for 45 days, are were again laid off for further periods of more than one week at a time. On the wording of the section, it is clear that the lay off which falls within proviso (b) to S. 25-C must be distinct from that for which compensation had been paid in accordance with proviso (a) to S.25-C and subsequent thereto in point of time. And as, in the present case there was one continuous lay off for the entire period, proviso (b) could have nois arguable that there could be a second and distinct lay off following the first without a break, as for example, when the management first notifys lay off for a period of 45 days and pays compensation therefor, and again issues a fresh notificaiton at the end of the period declaring a further lay off for a period exceeding seven days in continuation of the notified lay off, and that would fall within provisoin the present case, there was only one notification, and the period specified therein was up to the next season.By no straining of the language of proviso (b) to S. 25-C can such a lay off be brought within its purview. These respondents rely in support of their contention on the decision inAutomobile Products of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen,(1955) 1 Lab L J 67 (Bom) (A).But that decision gives no effect whatever to the words "again laid off", and moreover, if the construction adopted therein is correct, there would be no need for the provisos (a) and (b), as what would be payable under them, according to the respondents, would become payable under the body of the sectionas observed in the above decision, this conclusion leads to an anomalous position, it is for the legislature, if it thinks fit, to amend the section and not for the Tribunal to construe it otherwise than what it plainly means.We are accordingly of opinion that the respondents are entitled to compensation only for the 45 days as provided in proviso (a), and that as the appellant had offered to pay the same by its notice dated 12-7-1954, there was no alteration of the conditions of the service within S.22 of the Act, and that, in consequence, the petition of the respondents was liable to be rejected.