The Labour Court after hearing the parties allowed the said application on the ground that the appellants individually had number entered into any agreement with the management and companysequently the proviso to Section 25C of the Act would number companye in their way and, therefore, they were entitled to be paid 50 lay off companypensation for the entire period during which they were laid off i.e. from 8.8.1976 to 31.1.1978 and the term of the settlement under Section 12 3 arrived at during companypensation at 67 of the permissible statutory lay off companypensation would number be binding on the appellants.
The said textile mill remained closed due to financial crisis from 8.8.1976 to 31.1.1978.
However, while dismissing the same, the High Court granted a certificate under Article 133 1 of the Constitution for leave for appeal to this Court and that is show this appeal was filed in this Court and has reached the final hearing before us.
Accordingly, the amounts payable to the appellants were companyputed by the Labour Court and were directed to be paid by Respondent No.1 by its Order dated 30.1.1982.
Respondent No.1 was running a textile mill wherein the appellants were employed.
The workmen of the mill raised a dispute pertaining to lay off during the aforesaid period and claimed appropriate wages for the said period.
Respondent No.1 carried the matter in Writ Petition being No.
The writ petition of Respondent No.1 was, therefore allowed and the claim petition under Section 33C 2 as moved by the appellants was dismissed.
Five unions representing all the workmen took part in the companyciliation proceedings.
In the companyciliation proceedings a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 28.2.1977.
2962 of 1982 in the Madras High Court.
A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings require to be stated at the outset BACKGROUND FACTS The five appellants before us were employed at the relevant time under Respondent No.1 in various departments.
