TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is not disputed that the mill of the appellant H is recognised as an undertaking under section 11 of the Act. The respondent, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, is the approved, registered and representative union under section 14 of the Act, representing the employees in the cotton textile industry within the limits of Greater Bombay. It appears that on account of the alleged failure of the appellant to pay the Central Excise duty, certain detention orders were passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise detaining the goods of the appellant like cotton fabrics, cotton yarn and cotton bales Lying in the premises of the appellant's mill. As a result of the said detention orders, the goods which were essential for the manufacturing process in the appellants mill were detained and, consequently, there was a disruption in the functioning of the appellant's mill compelling the appellant to stop the working of the mill. It is not necessary for us to state in detail the proceedings that were taken by the appellant against the said detention orders, but suffice it to say that the detention orders were withdrawn and the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay closure compensation to the employees affected by the closure for the said period from March 24, 1964 to June 10, 1964 at the rate of 50% of their basic wages and dearness allowance and further directed that where the employees had been sick and enjoyed sickness benefits for all the days or had been on privilege leave or enjoyed leave with wages for all the days or secured alternative employment for any period during the closure, such employees would not be entitled to any closure compensation for such days, but in respect of such days half of the wages payable to Badli workmen in lieu of the said three categories of workmen would be paid to the Badli workmen equitably. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Industrial Court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant by special leave. Mr. G.B. Pai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits in the first instance that as the appellant had closed down the mill in accordance with the provisions of Standing orders 16 17, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Standing orders 16 17 provide as follows: 16. The Company may, at any time or times, in the event of a fire, catastrophe, brea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the Standing orders 16 17 due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to its employees for the period of closure. Nor are we in a position to accept the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the application of A the respondent-Sangh before the First Labour Court was not maintainable as the closure was made under the provisions of the Standing orders 16 17. In this connection, we may refer to the provision of sub-section (4) of section 42 of the Act which provides as follows: 42(4). Any employee or a representative union desiring a change in respect of (i) any order passed by the employer under standing orders, or (ii) any industrial matter arising out of the application or interpretation of standing orders, or (iii) an industrial matter specified in Schedule III, except item (5) thereof shall make an application to the Labour Court and as respects change desired in any industrial matter specified in item (3) of Schedule III, to the Industrial Court: Provided that no such application shall lie unless the employee or a representative union has in the prescribed manner approached the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing payment of compensation to some of the Badli workmen. It is not in dispute that Badli workmen get work only in the absence, temporary or otherwise, of regular employees, and that they do not have any guaranteed right of employment. Their names are not borne on the muster rolls of the establishment concerned. Indeed, a Badli workman has no right to claim employment in place of any absentee employee. In any particular case, if there be some jobs to be performed and the employee concerned is absent, the Company may take in a Badli workman for the purpose. Badli workmen are really casual employees without any right to be employed. It has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Badli employees could not be said to have been deprived of any work to which they had no right and, consequently, they are not entitled to any compensation for the closure. Indeed, the Industrial Court has itself observed that to allow the claim of Badli workmen would be tantamount to penalising the appellant. In spite of the said observation, the Industrial Court directed payment of compensation to the Badli workmen in place of certain categories of regular employees. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
