GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *Co-op Sugar Mills Anna Thozilalar Sangam & Ors. Vs. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.* W.P. Nos. 389 & 403 of 2021 Dated: 01.07.2021

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*Co-op Sugar Mills Anna Thozilalar Sangam & Ors. Vs. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.*
W.P. Nos. 389 & 403 of 2021
Dated: 01.07.2021

*Hon’ble Justice S. Vaidyanathan* disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Respondent Management to pay the compensation due to the laid-off workmen in the matter relating to *“Compensation to be paid to laid-off workmen”* and further observed and held the following:

1) In terms of Section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, compensation needs to be paid by the Management to the Workers.

2) In the instant case, there were two applications made, one when the total number of employees per average working day for the preceding 12 months is 100 and above and the other, when the total number of employees was 70. In such a scenario, Chapter V-B of the Act, including Section 25-K would not be applicable in the second instance.

3) Deprivation of wages amounts to violation of Articles 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution and, the wages payable to the employees cannot be retained by the employer, as it amounts to misappropriation of funds due to be paid to the employees by the employer.

4) Pendency of an Industrial Dispute raised by the Union cannot be quoted as a bar to entertain the writ petition as it is not an efficacious and alternative remedy.

5) The Government, even without adjudication will have to order revenue recovery in terms of Section 33-C(1) read with 11 B Industrial Dispute Act 1947, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of *Fabril Gasosa vs. Labour Commissioner,* reported in *[(1997) 3 SCC 150].*

6) It is held that if the amount is not paid and a complaint is made to that effect, the Government is directed to sanction prosecution against the Officials, falling under Section 32 of the I.D. Act, 1947, in consonance with Section 34 of the I.D. Act, 1947 for a suitable decision by the Competent Court for violation of the provisions of Section 25-C of the I.D. Act, 1947 in terms of Section 31 (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Adverse remarks shall also be entered into the Service Register of the Officials, who are responsible for payment of compensation.

7) It is further pointed out that the above is a peculiar circumstance in the case where the Government has no other option than to sanction prosecution against its own Officials for Non-Compliance of the Orders of the Court.