Section 6-H(2) cannot decide disputed retrenchment; it only computes an existing monetary entitlement, with no leave compensation after closure.

Section 6-H(2) permits only computation of a monetary benefit already established as due; it cannot be used to decide the antecedent dispute whether retrenchment in fact occurred. Because the employer denied retrenchment and the issue went to liability rather than mere calculation, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to award retrenchment compensation. The text also states that earned leave is a service incident dependent on the undertaking's continued operation, so no separate monetary compensation was payable for unavailed leave after closure in the absence of a specific statutory right.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under section 6-H(2) to determine claims for retrenchment compensation when the very existence of retrenchment was disputed; (ii) Whether any compensation was payable for earned leave not enjoyed before closure of the undertaking.

Issue (i): Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under section 6-H(2) to determine claims for retrenchment compensation when the very existence of retrenchment was disputed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed disputes relating to retrenchment within the exclusive competence of the Industrial Tribunal, while section 6-H(2) was confined to computation of a benefit already found to be due in terms of money. The power under that provision extended to determining the amount payable where liability was admitted or where the right already existed, but it did not authorise the Labour Court to decide the foundational controversy whether the workmen had in fact been retrenched. Since the employer had denied retrenchment and asserted that the workmen had continued in service under the Board without break and on not less favourable terms, the question was one of adjudication of liability, not mere computation.

Conclusion: The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the retrenchment compensation claims under section 6-H(2), and the orders awarding such compensation could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether any compensation was payable for earned leave not enjoyed before closure of the undertaking.

Analysis: The entitlement to earned leave was a facility incident to the carrying on of the business. Once the undertaking had closed, the employer could no longer afford leave and the workmen could not claim a separate monetary compensation merely because leave had not been availed of before closure. No statutory provision creating such a right was shown.

Conclusion: No compensation for unavailed earned leave was payable.

Final Conclusion: The awards of retrenchment compensation and leave compensation were unsustainable and the petitions under section 6-H(2) were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6-H(2) authorises only computation of an existing monetary benefit and cannot be used to adjudicate the antecedent dispute whether retrenchment occurred.

---