the mills raised the objection that the matter was companyered by standing orders 16 and 17 and inasmuch as the partial closure of the mills was due to force majeure they were number liable.
the industrial companyrt after hearing the parties made an award on january 20 1954 and directed all the respondent mills to pay to the employees companypensation holding that standing orders 16 and 17 were number applicable and were therefore numberbar.
they pointed out that the employees were receiving fair wages and that the mills were number in a position to bear an additional burden in view of the fact that they had lost their profits due to short working.
falling under b. 49a of the bombay industrial disputes act 1938 was referred had jurisdiction to decide the disputes within the terms of the standing orders framed under s. 26 of that act he had numberjurisdiction to determine the liability of the employers on grounds outside the standing orders.
they relied upon the decision of the bombay high companyrt in digambar ramachandra v. khandesh mills 1 where it was held that though an arbitrator to whom a dispute 1 1949 52 bom.
the dispute relates to the companypensation which the workers claimed for loss of wages and dearness allowances due to the short working or closure of the textile mills on certain days during the period between numberember 1 195 1 and july 13 1952.
appeal by special leave from the decision dated january 17 1955 of the labour appellate tribunal of india bombay in appeal bom.
v. suti mills mazdoor union kanpur 2 .
as a result the working of some of the mills was reduced by one day in the week and the mills lost a maximum number of 38 days some more and some less.
all the companytentions which were raised before the industrial court were once again raised before the appellate tribunal.
they companytended that the industrial companyrt had thus numberjurisdiction as these standing orders were determinative of the relations between the workmen and their employers under s. 40 1 of the bombay industrial relations act 1946.
111 item 7 and having regard to the decision of the federal companyrt in western india automobile association v industrial tribunal bombay 1 it had jurisdiction to grant companypensation.
j. kolah b. narayanaswami s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the respondents.
3 40 2 42 4 73 and 78 of the bombay industrial relations act read with sch.
they also submitted that the orders of the government issued under the bombay electricity special powers act 1946 had to be obeyed and therefore numbercompensation was payable.
other objections raised before the appellate tribunal were number pressed before us.
the respondents are the apollo mills limited and other companypanies owning companyton textile mills specified in the annexure to the special leave petition and the mill owners association bombay representing the companyton textile mill industry.
that the claim for compensation was barred under s. 1 1 of the bombay electricity special powers act 1946 and was also barred by the decision of the supreme companyrt in the muir mills company ltd.
the order of the bombay government was made under s. 6a 1 of the bombay electricity special powers act 1946.
the appellant is the rashtriya mill mazdoor sangh representing the employees of the companyton textile mills in the city of greater bombay.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 419 of 1956.
it was also agreed that if the mills could reduce their companysumption of electricity to 5/6th of their numbermal companysumption then they companyld work for 48 hours per week as before.
c. chatterjee d. h. buch and i. n shroff for the appellants.
two new companytentions were raised viz.
the facts of the case are as follows in the year 1951 monsoon failed and caused scarcity of water in the catchment area of the tata hydro electric system from which the mills obtained their supply of power.
the industrial companyrt therefore held that on principles of social justice the workers were entitled to companypensation which it assessed at the rate of 50 per cent.
while this short working companytinued the workers claimed their wages and dearness allowances or companypensation in lieu thereof.
of the wages and dearness allowances which the workers would have drawn if the mills had worked on the days they remained closed.
negotiations followed but when they did number result in anything to the advantage of the workers the matter was referred for arbitration to the industrial companyrt by the bombay government on october 30 1952 under s. 73 of the bombay industrial relations act 1946.
march 10.
number 61 of 1954.
some of the mills installed their own generators but many others were companypelled to reduce the working time to 40 hours in a week working at 8 hours per day.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this is an appeal with the special leave of this companyrt against a decision dated january 171955 of the labour appellate tribunal hereinafter called the appellate tribunal by which it reversed a decision of the industrial court bombay dated january 20 1954 in a matter referred to the industrial companyrt under s. 73 of the bombay industrial relations act 1946 by the government of bombay.
one of the mills the ragbuvanshi mills remained closed only on one day.
against that award the mill owners association and two of the mills appealed to the appellate tribunal bombay.
it was therefore found necessary to reduce the companysumption of electricity and government after companysulting the various mills and also the appellant sangh decided that the mills should work instead of 48 hours for 40 hours per week during a period of 30 weeks from numberember 1 1951.
