WORKMEN OF M/S FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER CO. OF INDIA (P) LIMITED versus FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 13-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

369 
WORKMEN OF MIS FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER CO. 
OF 11\IDIA (P) LIMITED 
v. 
FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY 
February 13, 1976 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J 
' 
Lay-off-Meaning of-Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act 
\ 
XIV of 1947), 1947. 
Lay-off-Right of the management of an Industrial Establishment under the 
Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947), 1947, to lay-off workmen-Section 
2(kkk), 25A, 25B(2) (i) and 25C of the Act-Scope of-Effect of s. 251. 
Conzpensation-"Lay-off compensation"-Whether laid-off workmen who do 
1101 come under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of 
s. 2SA are entitled to any co1npensation. 
Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947), 1947-Section 10(1), 33(c)(2), 
powers of the tribunal /court to award lay-off conipensation. 
The respondent-company manufacturing tyres in Bombay, due to the general 
strike in its factory between the oeriod 3rd March 1967 and 16th May 1967 
and again from 4th October 1967 and due to the consequent short supply of 
tyres had to lav-off 17 out of its 30 workmen in the Delhi distribution office 
and also some out of its 33 workmen in its Madras distribution office. 
The 
workmen in the Delhi and Madras offices were called back to duty on 22nd 
April 1968 and 29th April 1968 respectively. 
The workmen were not given 
their wages or compensation for the period of lay-off. 
An industrial dispute 
was raised and referred to the tribunal by the Delhi Administration even 
when the lay-off was in operation. The Presiding Officer of the Additional 
Industrial Tribunal, Delhi held that the work.men were not entitled to any lay-
off compensation. 
The workmen in Madras filed petitions under s. 33C(2) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of their wages for the period 
of their lay-off. 
The Presiding officer of the Additional Labour Court. Madras, 
holding that the lay-off was justified, dismissed their applications. 
On appeal to this Court by special leave, 
HELD : ( 1) The sim!)le dictiona·ry meaning according to the concise Oxford 
Dictionary of the term "lay-off' is "period during which a workman is tempo-
rarily discharged". 
Lay-off means the failure, refusal or inability of employer 
on account of contingencies mentioned in cl. (kkk) of s. 2 of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, to give employment to a workman whose name is borne 
on the Muster Rolls of his Industrial Establishment. It has' been called 
a 
temporary discharge of the workmen or a temporary suspension of his con-
tract of service. 
Strictly speaking, it is not so. 
It is merely a fact of tempo-
rary unemployment of the workman in the work of the Industrial Establish-
ment. 
Mere refusal or inability to give employment to the workman when he 
reports for duty on one or more grounds mentioned in cl. (kkk) of s. 2 is 
not a temporary discharge of the workman. 
[372A, 374A, B, G] 
Goya Cotton & Jute Mith Ltd. v. Gaya Cotton & Jute Mills Labour L'nion 
J l 9521 IT Labour Law Journal 37, referred to. 
(2) (i) That the power to lay-off a workman is inherent in the definition in 
.:l. (kkk) of s. 2 is not correct, since no words in the definition clause to indi-
cate the conferment of any power on the employer to lay-off a \Vorkman can 
be found. 
His failure or inability to give employment, by itself militates 
against the theory of conferment of power. 
No section in Chapter VA in 
express language or by necessary implication confers any power, even on the 
management of the Industrial Establishment to which the relevant provisions 
are applicable, to lay-off a workman. 
TQere is no provision in the Act speci-
fically providing that an employer would be entitled to lay-off his workmen 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 
for the reasons prescribed by s. 2 (kkk). Such a power, therefore, must be 
found out from the terms of contract of service or the Standing Orders govern-
ing the Establishment. 
[374 B-G] 
(ii) In the instant case, the number of workmen being only ~3, there being 
no Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Act (Act 20 of 1946), 1946, and there being no contract of service conferring 
any such right of lay-off, the inescapable conclusion ~ that the workmen were 
laid-off without any authority of law or the power m the management under 
ll 
the contract of service. 
[374 G-H] 
The Management of Hotel [mperial, New Delhi & others V. Hotel Workers' 

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