R. B. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND MILLS CO. LTD. versus LABOUR COURT NAGPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 25-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

58.0 
R. B. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND MILLS CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
LABOUR COURT NAGPUR & ORS. 
November 25, 1971 
[S. M. SJKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, 1. D. DuA AND 
G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act-S. 33C(2)-Whether 
jurisdiction to enterfllin application 
for lay-off 
s. 33C(2). 
Labour Court has 
co111peiisaticn 
under 
A textile mill in Madhya ·Pradesh employed about a thousand workers. 
The mill was owned by a firm, the appellant in the Second Appeal. A fire 
broke out in the Mill doin2 appreciable damage to some of the machines. 
From a letter of the Insurance company, the extent of the damage caused, 
was ascertained to be about Rs. 37,420/·. In terms of the last notice 
given by the employers the mills did not commence work but instead, the 
management transferred the mills to tlie company which had been incor-
porated on 8th December 1959. From the facts it was clear, that the 
damage to the machinery was insignificant as against the total assets trans· 
fcrred to the company and the damage was not such that it was not possible 
to run the mills at all.. 
Respondents 2 to 346 in the Second Appeal applied under s. 33C(i) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court claiming lay-off com· 
· pensation for the period they ~emained idle. The Labour Court held that 
there had been a lay-off within the meaning of s. 2(KKK) of Industrial 
Disputes Act and except 'badli' workers the employees were entitled to 
compensation for the full period of 18 months. The appellants in both 
the appeals, filed writ petitions before the High Court for quashing the 
order of the Labour Court and the High Court raised several issues and 
ultimately remanded the matters back to the Labour Court for recording 
fresh evidence as to whether the applicants presented themselves for work 
at the appointed lime at least on.,, a day within the meaning of s. 25E(ii). 
On the application of ihe appellants the High Court granted certificates 
under Art. !33(1)(a) of the Constitution. The point urged by the appel· 
!ants was that if a claim is made on the basis of a lay off and the employer 
contends that there was no lay off but closure it is open to a labour court 
to entertain an application under s .. 33C(2). It is more so when the dis· 
pute was not between a solitary workman on the one hand and the em-
ployer on the other but a whole body of workmen ranged against their 
employer who was faced with numerou• applications before the labour 
court for computation of benefit in terms of money. 
Dismissing t.he appeals, 
HELD : ·(i) From the facts and circumstances of the case, it was 
clear that the business of the company was continuing. They, in fact, con-
tinued to en1plo:v :;everal employees and their notices say that some portio:i 
of th~ mills would continue to work. The Labour Court's jurisdiction 
could not be ou,tt'<l by a .mere plea denying the workmen's claim to the 
computation of benefit in terms of money. 
The Labour Court must go 
'nto the matter anti come to ~ decision as to wbetho"r there was really 
a closure or a by off. If it took the view that there was a lay-Off, 
it 
\YOuld be acting 
v~·jthin its jurisdiction if it a,vardcd compensation in 
terms of the provisions in Ch. VA. 
The· High Court is right in uphold-
ing the declsion Gf 
ihe Court. f591 E·Hl 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
BANS!LAL ABIRCHAND co. v. LABOUR COURT (Mitter, J.) 581 
(ii) S.~ction 33C(2) takes within the purview, cases of workmen who 
daim that the benefits to whicb they were entitled should be com11uted in 
terms of money.. even though the right to the benefit on which their claim 
is based, is disputed by their employers. In other words, the Labour 
Court may enqu,ire into all such acts or disputes which are incidental to 
the main dispute. [588 C-D] 
(iii) Section 25C provides for the measure of compensation to be 
awarded in cases of lay off of workers. The claim to compensation of 
every workman who is laid off is one which arises under the statute itself 
and s. 25C, provides for a benefit to the workman which is capable of 
being computed in terms of monev under s. 33C(2), of the Act. The 
scheme of the Act is that an individual workman can approach a labour 
court for computation of compensation in terms of s. 25C of the Act and 
he is not concerned to see whether other co-workers will adopt the same 
course or not.. The fact that a number of workers make claims of identi-
cal nature cannPt make any difference to the indhidual workman

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