MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE, KOTAGIRI versus RAJ AMANICKAM AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 24-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
371 
rationalisation scheme required them to do, they refus-
ed to do work, which the employer had no right in 
law to ask them to do. It is difficult to say that ·this 
amounted to a "strike" by the workmen ; but even 
if it could be said to be a " strike " such strike was 
certainly not illegal or unjustified. 
Our conclusion therefore is that the Tribunal was 
right in its opinion that the closure of the mills by the 
employer amounted to an illegal lock-out, and the 
workmen, unable to work 'in consequence of the lock-
out, are entitled to wages for the period of absence, 
caused. by such lock-out. 
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE, 
KOTAGIRI 
v. 
RAJ AMANICKAM AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. 0. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
I ndu.strial Dispute-Lay-off compensation-Closure of division 
due to disturbances by workers-Lock-out-Subsequent reopening of 
division-Claim for lay-off compensation-Lock-out and lay-off, 
Distinction-Industrial Disputes Act, z947-(I4 of z947), ss. 2(l), 
2 (kkk), 25C, 25E(iii), 33C. 
The appellant's manager was violently attacked by its 
workmen as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. 
The workers in the lower division also threatened the appellant's 
staff working in that division that they would murder them if 
they worked there. The appellant was therefore compelled to 
notify that the division would be closed until further notice. 
Subsequently as a result of conciliation before the labour officer, 
the division was opened again. The workers made a claim for 
lay-off compensation under s. 25C of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, r947, for the period during which the lower division was 
closed on the footing that :the management for their own 
reasons did not choose to run the division during that period. 
The appellant's answer was, inter alia, that the closure of the 
division amounted to a lock-out which under the circumstances 
was perfectly justified and as such the workers were not entitled 
to claim any lay-off compensation : 
Held; (r) that the concept of a lock-out is essentially 
different from that of a lay-off and where the closure of business 
amounts to a lock-out under s. 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
Nor th Brook ] ute 
Co. Ltd. 
v. 
Their Workmen 
Das G"pta ]. 
March z4. 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
1960 
it woulrl be impossible to bring it within the scope of a lay-off 
under s. z (kkk) of the Act. 
Management of 
·(z) that the expression "any other reason " ins. z (kkk) 
Kairbetta Estate means any reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already 
v. 
specified in that section. 
Rajamanickam 
]. J{. Hosiery Factory v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India 
& Anr, A.LR. 1956 All. 498, approved. 
(3) that the lock-out which was justified on the facts of the 
case, \vas not a lay-off and therefore the 'vorkmen \Vere not 
entitled to claim any lay;off compensation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 91 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated 
March 24, 1958, of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in 
R. P. No. 35 of 1958. 
G. B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi and T. S. Venkataraman, for 
the respondents. 
1960. March 24. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gajendragadkar ]. 
GA.TENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave 
iR 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 workr;nen, 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). 
The material facts leading to the respondents' com-
plaint 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 Coouoor 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 appellant on July 27, 1957, 
that they were afraid to go down to the lower division 
and it was impossible for them to work there becau~e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.