SAVATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO LTD Vs. BALIRAM UKANDAJI
LAWS(BOM)-1962-8-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on August 25,1962

SAVATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
BALIRAM UKANDAJI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JOHN M.WILKERSON V. CHARLES A.RAHRER [REFERRED TO]
AYYASWARNI NADAR V. JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH ARCOT ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. V. ELUNMALAI [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL NAGPUR COTTON MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
BHIKAJI NARAIN DHAKRAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL PROVINCES TRANSPORT SERVICE LIMITED NAGPUR VS. RAGHUNATH GOPAL PATWARDHAN [REFERRED TO]
NEWSPAPERS LIMITED VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL U P [REFERRED TO]
S S SHETTY VS. BHARAT NIDHI LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. N SALIVATESWARAN [REFERRED TO]
DEEP CHAND BRAHMAN LAL SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH HARI SHANKER SHYAM LAL RAM PRASAD JAIN TRANSPORT GENERAL TRADING CO JAIPAL SINGH VIRENDRA PAL GUPTA VISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA REJENDRAPAL SIA RAM BRIJPAL SINGH PANDIT SRINIVAS MADHO RAM MOHI UDD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED CHAIBASA CEMENT WORKS JHINKPANI VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
AMBICA MILLS CO LIMITED VS. S B BHATT [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED VS. K L KHARBANDA [REFERRED TO]
RIFLE FACTORY CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. FOURTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
NAGALINGA NADAR VS. B K NAYAR [REFERRED TO]
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICERLABOUR COURTMADRAS [REFERRED TO]
DANIEL DORAIRAJ VS. MANAGEMENT OF THE BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKSHMI MILLS CO VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS [REFERRED TO]
A D DIVEKAR VS. DINESH MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
VALAJIBHAI AVCHARBHAI VS. CHIMANLAL HEMRAJ JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
BALKRISHNA KASHINATH KHOPKAR VS. A S RANGNEKAR [REFERRED TO]
AMARSINHJI MILLS LTD VS. NAGRASHNA M N [REFERRED TO]
BALARAM ABAJI PATIL VS. M C RAGOJIWALLA [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHAMAN D LAMBE VS. R N KULKARNI [REFERRED TO]
SREE BEHARIJI MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
G P STEWART VS. BROJENDRA KISHORE ROY CHAUDHURY [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

Abhyankar, J. - (1.)The order in this application will also govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961.
(2.)The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 360 of 1961 is Messrs. Sawatram Ramprasad Mills, Company, and the contesting respondent is one of their workers, Baliram. In the other two petitions, Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961, the petitioner is Rai Saheb Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills at Hinganghat, and in each the contesting respondent is one of the workers in the Mill. In all the three cases an employee of the Mills, which are all textile Miils in Vidarbha region, filed an application "before the presiding officer of the Labour Court, Bombay, at Nagpur. The claim in each of the application was for payment of lay-off compensation on the ground that the worker was illegally laid off by the employer and was entitled to compensation under Section 25A (sic 25C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Specific amounts have been claimed as lay-off compensation. The workers claimed the amount by making an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947 which shall be hereafter referred to as the Central Act
(3.)In each of these cases the Mills raised preliminary objections to 'the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application or to adjudicate on the same. The Mills denied the liabilities. They also denied that any of the claimants was entitled to make the application or that the period during which the worker was not on duty was a period of lay-off or that there was any lay-off. In respect of the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills at Akola, it was contended that the closure of the Mills was brought about by a huge gathering of the Mill employees surrounding the geneYal office. The gathering of the employees Started shouting slogans. The inmates were not allowed to go to their residence for rest and were illeealiy confined. The employees denied this allegation about demonstration by shouting of slogans and threats. Thus, as a result of the situation created by the employees a notice was put up on the next day under Standing Order 19 by which all the employees were laid off as working, had become impossible.


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