T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.
1. This writ petition which is set along with a batch of Writ Petitions, is to quash the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P. No. 278 of 1966. The short facts are that the 2nd respondent representing some of the workers of the petitioner management filed applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for compensation for involuntary unemployment for a period of 45 day, during January to November, 1965 and for a period of 30 days during December, 1965 to February, 1966. The respondent's case was that they were entitled to lay off compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act. But the petitioner contended that there was a settlement or arrangement between its workers and itself in an independent proceeding anterior to the period of involuntary unemployment and such settlement would bind the workers and would consequentially disentitle them, from making a claim under Section 33-C (2). The Labour Court went into the question and found as a fact that the agreement was not strictly applicable to the instant case, because that agreement, even if it could be pressed into service, refers only to badly workers and not to permanent workers. In any event, the Labour Court was of the View that there is a statutory interdict in Section 25-J of the Act which prevented the operation of such settlements between the management and the workers outside the purview of the Act.
2. It is as against this the present Writ Petition has been filed by the management. Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would reiterate that the settlement referred to in paragraph 28 of the order of the Labour Court would factually apply to the circumstances of this case and even otherwise such arrangement inter se between the employer and the employee is workable and can be implemented. I am not able to agree. On a perusal of the agreement, an excerpt of which is found in paragraph 28 of the order, it is seen that it essentially refers to badly workers and does not ex facie refer to permanent workers. On this ground the first contention of the petitioner should fail.
3. As regards the other ground that agreement de hors the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act can be pressed into service in a claim under Section 33-C (2) notwithstanding the presence of Section 25-J, I am not able to appreciate this contention either. Sub-clause (2) of Section 25-J of the Act makes, it clear that the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act ought to and will prevail at all material times when the question is as to what is the lay off or retrenchment compensation which has to be paid by the management to the workers. The mandate in the sub-clause is imperative and it reads that the right and liabilities of employer and workman in so far as they relate to lay off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. This mandate in the later part of Sub-section (2) of Section 25-J imports into the subject a compulsory following up of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act and an implied avoidance of any arrangement or settlement outside the provisions of that chapter between the employers and workmen. This being the scope of Sub-clause (2) of Section 26-J the Labour Court rightly found that the lay off compensation was to be reckoned and determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not with reference to any settlement as projected by the management.
4. No other point survives in this writ petition. The order of the Labour Court is well within its jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.