A if a workman has a claim for lay off it can only come up for decision under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 and, indeed, s. 25J(2) says so in express terms. The attempt to keep out the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Chapter V-A and s. 33C must, therefore, fail. The next attempt, namely, that the C.P. & Berar Act applies is also ineffective. It is pointed B out that the oreamble of the C.P. & Berar Act shows that it was an Act for the promotion of peaceful and amicable settlement of industrial disputes by condliation and arbitration, that 'industrial disputes' means any dispute or difference connected with an industrial matter arising between an employer and an employee or between employers or employees and that 'industrial matter' C means any matter relating to pay, wages, reward, etc. It is submitted, therefore, that the dispute must come under the C.P. & Berar Act because of s. 31 of the 1956 (Amendment) Act and s. 25J of the 1953 (Amendment) Act already quoted. The argument is the last one in another form. This argument is falla- D cious at the very start because lay off and compensation for lay off are to be found only in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7. There is no mention of lay off or compensation for Jay off as one of the matters over which the C.P. & Berar Act has any jurisdiction. Next, even if ss. 31 and 25J save the application of the C.P. & Berar Act they do so subject to the E condition that question of lay off must be decided in accordance with Chapter V-A and s. 33C clearly provides that a dispute for any money due under Chapter V-A has to go before the appropriate Government or its delegate. Here the delegate is the Second Labour Court, Bombay. The argument that this controversy is wrongly before the Second Labour Court, Bombay F is, therefore, entirely erroneous and must be rejected.
