RAMKRISHAN RAMNATH BIDI MANUFACTURING KAMPTEE Vs. LABOUR COURT NAGPUR
LAWS(BOM)-1962-8-31
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on August 25,1962

RAMKRISHAN RAMNATH BIDI MANUFACTURING, KAMPTEE Appellant
VERSUS
LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

INDIAN CO-OPERATIVE NAVIGATION AND TRADING COMPANY V. PADAMSEY [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH ARCOT ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY,LTD. V. ELUMALAI [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT IN INDIAN CO-OPERATIVE NAVIGATION AND TRADING COMPANY V. PADAMSEY [REFERRED TO]
INDER SINGH & SONS,LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
UNITED COLLERIES,LTD.V. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. N SALIVATESWARAN [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED VS. K L KHARBANDA [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL NAGPUR COTTON MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMARSINHJI MILLS LTD VS. NAGRASHNA M N [REFERRED TO]
SAVATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO LTD VS. BALIRAM UKANDAJI [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ GUPTA VS. DEHRA DUN-MUSSOORIE ELECTRIC TRAMWAY CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
JHAGRAKHAND COLLIERIES PRIVATE, LIMITED VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Palekar, J. - (1.)This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari and prohibition. The petitioner is Ramkrishan Ramnath Bidi Factory at Kamptee. Respondent 1 is the presiding officer, labour court, at Nagpur, and respondent 2 is a bidi-binder of Kamptee.
(2.)The bidi-factory was closed from 1 July, 1958 to 9 August, 1958 and thus bidi-workers were out of employment for that period. After the factory was reopened on 10 August, 1958, all the employees, including respondent 2, were reemployed.
(3.)On 7 March, 1961, respondent 2 filed an application before respondent 1 purporting to be one under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent 2 alleged that as a consequence of the closure of the factory, the workers including herself were retrenched and hence she was entitled to retrenchment compensation under Chap. V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She further claimed that it was a benefit computable under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, respondent 1 should compute the benefit and award it to her. This application was met by the petitioner by filing two written statements. In the first written statement, the principal contention was that the respondent Court, that is, the labour court at Nagpur, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application because the claim for retrenchment compensation was not a benefit capable of being computed in terms of money within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of S. 33C. By the additional written statement, the petitioner contended that the claim was time-barred, in any case, liable to be dismissed on the ground of undue delay.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.