MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE KOTAGIRI P O Vs. RAJAMANICKARN
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 24,1960

MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE,KOTAGIRI P.O. Appellant
VERSUS
RAJAMANICKARN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

WORKMEN OF HALMIRA TEA ESTATE VS. MANAGEMENT OF HALMIRA TEA ESTATE [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
METAL ROLLING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GENERAL LABOUR UNION RED FLAT [LAWS(BOM)-2000-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR RAYONS SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(KER)-1982-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
S A E MAZDOOR UNION VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER INDOR [LAWS(MPH)-2001-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF COSSIPORE TEA ESTATE VS. BAGAN PANCHAYAT OF COSSIPORE TEA ESTATE, CACHAR [LAWS(GAU)-2014-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN WOOSIN LIMITED EMPLOYEES UNION VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2007-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
MANGEMENT OF ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I [LAWS(APH)-2009-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGH VS. G K W LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1998-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES VS. G R SAPRE [LAWS(BOM)-1979-9-55] [REFERRED]
SYNDICATE BANK CANARA BANK STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. K UMESH NAYAK:R JAMBUNATHAN:STATE BANK STAFF UNION [LAWS(SC)-1994-9-110] [RELIED ON]
MGMT OF K D SPINNING MILLS LTD VS. P O LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2002-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL TUBES MANUFACTURING CO LTD VS. S R SAMANT JUDGE INDUSTRIAL COURT [LAWS(BOM)-1980-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-1979-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGH VS. G K W LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1999-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LIMITED VS. OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-1999-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF PUDUKOTTAH TEXTILE LIMITED VS. A GANAPATHI [LAWS(MAD)-1979-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS. UNITED INDIA PERIODICALS P LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-233] [REFERRED TO]
SH SATYA PRAKASH GIRI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(P&H)-1994-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY VS. MUSSMT SAIDUN [LAWS(CAL)-1965-6-29] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR UNION MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2012-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
MODISTONE LIMITED VS. MODISTONE EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2001-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS INDIA LTD VS. WORKMEN OF KALIYAR ESTATE [LAWS(KER)-1984-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAFAT LAL ENGINEERING INDUSRIES LTD VS. ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS [LAWS(BOM)-1982-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAPPAN H VS. KALEESWARAR MILLS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1967-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
PAPNASAM LABOUR UNION VS. MADURA COATS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1994-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO LTD VS. P O INDL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KAR)-2000-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
MESSRS. BUDGE BUDGE FLOOR COVERINGS LTD. VS. SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-6-69] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARLAL LALJIBHAI VS. M N NAGRASHNA [LAWS(GJH)-1964-1-9] [REFERRED]
WORKMEN OF DEWAN TEA ESTATE VS. THEIR MANAGEMENT [LAWS(SC)-1963-11-3] [REFERRED]
S JAGADEESAN VS. AYYA NADAR JANAKI AMMAL COLLEGE SIVAKASI [LAWS(MAD)-1981-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
LONETREE ESTATE VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KER)-1961-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION COACH VS. MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2000-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR UNION MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2012-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD VS. AVINASH D KAMBLE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL COURT [LAWS(BOM)-1982-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA SPINNING MILLS WORKERS UNION VS. KERALA SPINNERS LTD [LAWS(KER)-1994-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF GAU PRESS LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(GAU)-1982-9-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court at Coimbatore directing the appellant, the Management of the Kairbetta Estate, Kotagiri, to pay lay off compensation to its workmen, the respondents, for the period between July 28, 1957, to September 2, 1957. This order was passed on a complaint filed by the respondents before the Labour court under S. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.)The material facts leading to the respondents' complaint must be set out briefly at the outset. On July 26, 1957, Mr. Ramakrishna Iyer, the appellant's Manager, was assaulted by some of the workmen of the appellant. He suffered six fractures and had to be in hospital in Coonoor and Madras for over a month. The appellant's staff working in the division known as kelso Division was also threatened by the workmen. As a result of these threats three members of the staff wrote to the appellants on July 27, 1957, that they were afraid to go down to the lower division and it was impossible for them to work there because their lives were in danger. They added that the workers in the lower division were threatening them that they would murder them if they worked in the lower division. On receiving this communication from its staff the appellant notified on the same day that the Kelso Division would be closed from that day onwards until further notice. This notice referred to the brutal assault on the Manager and to the threat held out against the field staff who were reluctant to face the risk of working in the lower division. It appears that the Kelso Division continued to be closed until September 2, 1957, on which date it was opened, as a result of conciliation before the labour officer, when the respondents gave an assurance that there would not be any further trouble. The claim for lay off is made for the said period during which the division remained closed between July 28 to September 2, 1957.
(3.)Soon after the division was closed the respondents made a complaint to the Labour Court (No. 43 of 1957) under S. 33A of the Act in which they alleged that they had been stopped from doing their work without notice or enquiry and claimed an order or reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. At the hearing of the said complaint the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the closure in question was a lock out and that it did not amount either to an alteration of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen nor did it constitute discharge or punishment by dismissal or otherwise under cls. A and B of S. 33 respectively, and so the petition was incompetent. This preliminary objection was upheld by the Labour Court and the complaint was accordingly dismissed on November 30, 1957.
;


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