In respect of the rest, the demand is rejected.
Appeals by special leave from the preliminary order dated June 3, 1961 and Order dated September 29,1961 of the Second Labour Court, Bombay in Applications I.D.A. Nos.
The direction in the earlier award on which this claim was based was made in these terms The demand in respect of the workers of the Mains, Services and District Fittings Departments and Lamp Repairers and others who were till 1948 required to work on Sundays and in respect of whom a weekly day off was enforced thereafter without any companyresponding increase in wages is granted.
This demand was resisted by the appellant on several preliminary grounds which formed the subject matter of several preliminery issues framed by the Labour Court.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India, K. T. Sule, M. C. Bhandare, M. Rajagopalas and K. B. Chaudhuri, for the respondents.
May 9.
The principal companytentions raised by the appellant by way of preliminary objections were.
54 of 1949 published in the Bombay Government Gazette on May 11, 1950, they were entitled to a certain benefit and they moved the Labour Court to companypute that benefit in terms of money and to direct the appellant to pay the same to them.
that the applications made by the respondents were number maintainable under s. 33C 2 of the Act and that the said applications were barred by res judicata by reason of awards made in other proceedings between the same parties.
The Labour Court took up for trial 10 prcliminary issues in the first instance and by its judgment delivered on June 3, 1961, it rejected all the preliminary pleas raised by the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Thereafter, the applications were set down for hearing on the merits and evidence was led by both the parties in support of their respective claims.
14 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
It was also urged by the appellant that if the claim made by the respondents was held to be justified by the direction of the award on which the respondents relied, then the said direction was given by the earlier Tribunal without jurisdiction and as such, was incapable of enforcement.
11 a was rejected.
In other words, the preliminary issues framed by the Labour Court were found in favour of the respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.J. These 16 appeals arise out of petitions filed by the 16 respondents who arc the employees of the appellant, the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd., under section 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act No.
On companysidering the evidence, the Labour Court came to the companyclusion that the respondents had established their claims, and so, it has directed the appellant to pay to the respondents the respective amounts specified against their names in the award.
These respondents are the District Siphon Pumpers and Heat Appliances Repairers Inspectors, and in their applications made before the Second Labour Court, Bombay, they alleged that as a result of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal in reference I. T. No.
J. Kolah, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
333 334 of 1962.
447 to 462 of 1958.
