Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award dated 5th November, 1977, of the first respondent. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of lathes and textile machinery having its factory At 8/146-B, Tiruchy Road, Singanallur Post, Coimbatore-5. It has a complement of about 250 permanent workmen. Over and above this, the petitioner also used to engage temporary workmen out of a pool of 100 temporary workmen depending upon the exigencies of work. The employment of temporary workmen was only for specific periods and at the end of each such period, their employment would automatically come to an end. In the years 1973 and 1974, owing to recession in the engineering and textile industry and power shortage, the petitioner was obliged to lay-off its. permanent workmen for many days and consequently there was no scope for employment of any of the temporary workmen. An industrial dispute was raised with regard to the non-employment of 20 out of 100 temporary workmen and the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, as Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 1974. By the time the dispute was ripe for hearing, the position slightly improved and there were opportunities for engagement of temporary workmen. In fact, among the temporary workmen engaged, 10 were covered by Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 1974 and they were provided with employment. But there was also an agreement to provide employment for 10 other temporary workmen. However, only six turned up for work.

2. On and from April, 1975, due to lack of orders and unsatisfactory financial position of the petitioner, work could not be provided even to the permanent workmen. Naturally, the temporary workmen also could not be engaged. 50 temporary workmen filed claim petition before the Labout Court claiming lay-off compensation from 25th April, 1975. The Labour Court, Coimbatore, passed orders on 13th July, 1976, holding that these temporary workmen had not put in one year of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as the Act) and hence they were not entitled to lay-off compensation under Section 25C of the Act. The Labour Court further found that these workmen had not reported themselves to work on all days during the period for which lay-off was claimed. Ultimately, their claims were rejected.

3. Sixteen of the temporary workmen who were parties to the dispute in Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 1974, raised an industrial dispute claiming lay-off compensation for their non-employment from 25th April, 1975. On 8th January, 1977, a settlement was reached before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, where the parties agreed to refer the following issue for the arbitration by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras, the first respondent herein:

Whether the sixteen workmen mentioned in the annexure ought to have been provided with regular and continuous work from 25th April, 1975, and thereafter, if so whether they are entitled to lay-off compensation for the period on or after 25th April, 1975.