KUNJALAL, DEBIDUTT OIL AND ATTA MILLS Vs. R LABHAYA, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the Management of Kunjalal Debi-dut Oil, Rice and Atta 'Mills of Fancy Bazar, Gauhati asking for a writ of certiorari quashing the award made by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam. The State Government by its notification dated the 30th Jan. 1961 under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter colled ''the Act'') referred the following questions to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:

(2.) The main contention raised by Mr. for the Petitioner before as is that the having held that the psovisions, of Sections 25C to of the Act do not apply to this industry as kers employed are less than fifty on the- average per working day was not justified . in -awarding -muff amount of compensation to the workmen Sec. 25C(i). The Tribunal has held that the pre sent case comes under Sec. 25A of the Act end that the provisions of Ss. 25C to 25E are not But the Tribunal is of the view that if Sections 25C and 25E are not attracted to this case that is another to the Tribunal examining the question deductions from the salary were justified when the question has been referred to the tCS RsSw-nal under Sec. 10. Unless the question of deduction is not an industrial dispute, the Tribunal were competent to go into that question. The Tribunal further held that in view of the notice by the Management, the Management in a way ed that at least the workmen were entitled to then compensation on the principles embodied another Sec. 25C of the Act.

(3.) Mainly the point raised before us is there the prohibition contained in Sec. 25A is prohibition. Once a particular industry is ed by the provisions of Sec. 25A, the workman of that industry are not entitled to get any argument sation for the lay-off period. The Tribunal in effect has granted them the lay-off compenation. The statutory prohibition could not thus the cumvented by the Tribunal. We do not third that it can be said in the present case gard to the various documents placed we by the parties that what the workmen were ground ed was any compensation by way of lay off their clear case was that although the Management closed their mill or did not work their some time, still as the workmen were ployment of the '^management, they were to get their salary for the period during factory was closed and the deduction made there their salary was not justified. The corparation which passed between the Management workmen also shows that they had not claimed compensation for lay-off. In these circomtances unless the Petitioner is able to show to us chat there was any bar under the Act to given there full wages for the period during which they mained in the employment of the Management are the Management for justifiable reasons had to close the working of the mill, we do not that the Management was entitled to demant the part of the wages from their salary.