Case: The Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Baliram Ukandaji And Another

1. 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 S. 33C (1) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (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 C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes (Settlement) Act, 1947 and, secondly, that the application under S. 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 Arts, 226 and 227 of the constitution but by the judgment under appeal their application was dismissed. It may be pointed out here the there were similar applications for compensation for lay off by the other workmen of the Mills and on this preliminary point they were all heard together.

Reasoning:
4. From these sections, which we have quoted, certain conclusions indisputably arise. The first conclusion is that compensation for lay off can only be determined under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This follows from S. 25-J (2) as it is so stated there. The next is that the workmen are entitled under S. 33-C (1) to go before the second Labour Court to realise money due from their employers under Chapter V-A. This is clearly stated in S. 33-C. The contention on behalf of the Mills, however, is that the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 does not apply to the present matter but the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes (Settlement) Actis no mention of lay off or compensation for lay off as one of the matters over which the C. P. and Berar Act has any jurisdiction. Next, even if Ss. 31 and 25-J save the application of the C. P. and Berar Act they do so subject to the condition that question of lay off must be decided in accordance with Chapter V-A and S. 33-C 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 beargument has been considered on more than one occasion and it was rejected recently by this Court in Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of U. P. (C. As. 1108 and 1109 of 1963, D/ -26-11-1964: (AIR 1965 SC 1488 ). It is not essential that the claim which can be brought before the Government or its delegate under S. 33-C (1) 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 workman will show to the Second Labour Court that he is qualified to receive compensation for 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, S. 33-C 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.