Court ruling on lay-off due to power supply disruptions

An order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, that workmen were entitled for wages during lay-off imposed by management of Cambodia Mills, Coimbatore, for the reason that there was “some power failure or power trippings,” has been upheld by the Madras High Court.

The Labour Court had held that Section 25(M)(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contemplated statutory entitlement of workers for claiming wages “even without any adjudication, and in case of refusal of permission or non-obtaining of permission (for lay-off), workmen were entitled for wages as if there was no lay-off”.

The management of the company contended that it was their understanding that due to shortage of power or natural calamity, no prior approval was required from competent authority under Section 25(M)(1) of the Act. They also placed reliance upon clause 11 of the standing order under which the management might at any time, in the event of fire or stoppage of power supply, etc. stop working any machine or close any department wholly or partially for any period.

It was also claimed by them that during the lay-off period, they offered alternative employment to workers, which was not availed of by workers.

Workers had also been paid 50 per cent of wages as lay-off compensation.

Workmen moved the Labour Court with claim petitions for full wages for lay-off period (January to December 2002), as according to them, the management failed to get prior approval for lay-off and hence the lay-off was illegal. The Labour Court held that defence taken by the management was not valid in the light of Section 25M of the Act, and inasmuch as they had not sought for any approval from competent authority and hence, the lay-off was illegal.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard the writ petition by the management challenging the order dated September 2, 2004 of the Labour Court, referred to petitioner's contention that the Labour Court did not take note of the provision of alternative employment to workers.

It was also noted that defence of alternative during period of lay-off was provided u/s 25E of Act. It was the management's understanding that any lay-off due to power shortage need not require any permission. Only when such application was made, and the Government agreed with the offer made by them, the management could take such a defence.

Even before the Labour Court, they did not lead any documentary evidence. In the circumstances, this court did not find any infirmity or illegality in impugned order of the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition stood dismissed, the Judge held.

COMMENT NOW