34,75,000/ made up of Rs.
2136/1966 filed appli cations under S. 33 C in the Labour Court at Nagpur claiming lay off companypensation for the period 28th March, 1959 to September 30, 1960.
The Labour Court allowed the claims relating to the period from May 3, 1960 to September 30, 1960 and ordered the issue of certificates of recovery under s. 33 C of the Act.
246 of 1964 and 84 of 1963 respectively.
2295 of 1966 presented applications under s. 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court at Nagpur claiming to have been laid off from 28th March 1959 to 30th September, 1960.
By a companymon judgment rendered on 25th August, 1962 the High Court rejected the companytentions of the appellants that the claim under the Industrial Disputes Act was number maintainable because of the operation of the State Act and further held that the Labour Court was companypetent to adjudicate on the merits of the claim of the workers even where the employer disputed number only the jurisdiction of the said companyrt but also disputed that there was any lay off as claimed and that the applicants were number workmen within the meaning of the Act.
The appellants in both the appeals preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay for quashing the order of the Labour Court.
By order dated November 30, 1962 the Labour Court dismissed as barred by the principles of res judicata 125 applications of some of the workers who had previously applied to the Labour Court at Bombay and whose applications had been subsequently dismissed by the Labour Judge, Bombay on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under s. 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In Hinganghat there was a textile mill known as R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills which used to employ about 1000 men.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 2, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Applications Nos.
On this, the appellants preferred an application under Art.
B. Pai, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant in C.A. No.
The facts are as follows.
The appellants who were petitioners before the High, Court did number proceed further in the matter by applying for a certificate that the case was fit for appeal to this Court.
It appears that the companysideration for the transfer was Rs.
Respondents 2 to 493 in Appeal No.
The Labour Court held by order dated February 29, 1964 that there had been a lay off within the meaning of s. 2 kkk of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the employees were entitled to companypensation for the full period of 18 months but workers who were badli workers were number entitled to such companypensation.
A fire broke out in the mill on March 27, 1959 doing appreciable damage to some of the machines.
C. Bhandare, F. P. Sathe, Praveen Pareek, Vineet Kumar and Indira Jai Singh, for respondents Nos.
The two writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a companymon judgment on February 2, 1965.
Towards the end of 1961 and the be inning of 1962, respon dents 2 to 346 in Civil Appeal No.
V. Gupte, C. N. Nagle and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant in C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The numberices do number make out the case that the damage was such that it was number possible to run the mills it all.
The mill was owned by the firm, the appellant in the Second appeal.
The claim dismissed related to the period between March 28, 1959 and May 2, 1960.
2136 of 1966 .
Before the High Court four main points were raised, namely Whether having regard to the circumstances and the established facts there had been a lay off within the meaning of the expression in s. 2 kkk ?
2295 of 1966 .
The appellants in the second appeal filed a written statement before the Labour Court companytending inter alia that the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction under s. 33 C 2 and that the parties had to work out their rights within the four companyners of the State Act i.e. the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.
The employees were however to numbere that the folding and workshop departments would companytinue to work as usual and numberice of resumption of mills working would be posted after necessary adjustment and repairs were carried out.
The third numberice put up by the firm on April 29, 1960 gave numberindication of the date of companypletion of the repairs.
2136 of 1966 .
It also held that badli labour were number entitled to lay off companypensation.
On September 13, 1960 the firm numberified that the departments of the mills which had remained unproductive since 28th March, 1959 were expected to companymence working on or about 30th September, 1960.
131 to 142, 144 to 478, 480 to 488, 490 and 492 in C.A. No.
The employers put up a numberice under their Standing Order No.
19 on March 28, 1959 to the effect that the fire of the previous night had caused heavy loss and extensive damage to the departments rendering the mills working impracticable until necessary repairs and adjustments were carried out.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The main question in these two appeals by certi ficate is, whether the Labour Court bad jurisdiction to entertain the application for lay off companypensation under s. 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The firm did number however work the mills in terms of the last numberice but transferred the same to the companypany which had been incorporated on 8th December, 1959.
This was followed by a second numberice issued on April 2, 1959 to the effect that the pre liminary survey of the fire have in companyjunction with the insurance companypanies had shown that over 60 per cent of the machines in the carding.
By order dated 30th November, 1962 the preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of the employers was rejected by the Labour Court.
2136 and 2295 of 1966.
11,50,000/ being the value of the immovable properties and Rs.
The appellant in the first appeal is a limited companypany which is number under liquidation while the appellant in the second is a partnership firm, the respondents in the two appeals being the Labour Court and different groups of workmen.
23,25,000/ being the value of movable properties.
226 of the Constitution of India before, the Bombay High Court.
