Back
1958 Supreme(AP) 100
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY
Taj Glass Works Ltd., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Government of Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-11-58
The Labour Officer and the Collector had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the employer and the employee as to whether the employee was retrenched or dismissed, and the amount due to the employee, and there was no amount due which could be recovered under Section 25 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1953, as there was no predetermination of the amount due by a competent authority.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-F AND 25(1) - RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION - RECOVERY OF - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR OFFICER AND COLLECTOR - DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER EMPLOYEE RETRENCHED OR DISMISSED - NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE - NO AMOUNT DUE - NO RECOVERY UNDER SECTION 25(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company owning a Glass Factory, discharged the 5th respondent, an employee, for negligence and continued inefficiency. The 5th respondent filed a petition before the Labour Officer, Medak, complaining that he was summarily discharged without being given an opportunity to explain his position and that the management did not pay his gratuity except 15 days notice and leave pay. The Labour Department directed the petitioner to pay certain amounts to the 5th respondent under Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1953. The petitioner challenged the enquiry made by the Asst. Secretary, Labour Department and his jurisdiction to hold such enquiry. The Labour Department directed the Collector to take proceedings under Section 25 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1953.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Labour Officer and the Collector had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the employer and the employee as to whether the employee was retrenched or dismissed, and the amount due to the employee. The court further held that there was no amount due which could be recovered under Section 25 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1953, as there was no predetermination of the amount due by a competent authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Officer and the Collector had jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the employer and the employee as to whether the employee was retrenched or dismissed, and the amount due to the employee. 2. Whether there was any amount due which could be recovered under Section 25 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1953.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Labour Officer and the Collector had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the employer and the employee as to whether the employee was retrenched or dismissed, and the amount due to the employee, as there was no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act conferring such authority on them. 2. The court held that there was no amount due which could be recovered under Section 25 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1953, as there was no predetermination of the amount due by a competent authority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice of the Collector dated 14-3-1956 and further directed the setting aside of the attachment made pursuant to that notice.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of a certiorari to quash the notice No. B-5 1183/92/55 dated 14-3-1956 issued by the Collector, Hyderabad District as also to set aside the attachment of the applicants property made pursuant thereto as being ultra vires and illegal. The petitioner is a public limited company owning a Glass Factory. The 5th respondent in this case is an employee of the factory till he was discharged on 16-12-1954, according to the petitioner, for negligence and continued inefficiency. Immediately after he was discharged on 20-12-1954, he received a sum of Rs. 78-6-0 for 16 days in December, 1954 and 15 days notice pay in full and final settlement of his account. The next day after he received this money viz. , on 21-11-1954 he filed a petition before the Labour Officer, Medak, complaining that he was summarily discharged without being given an opportunity to explain his position and that in spite of 8 1/2 years service, the management did not pay his gratuity except 15 days notice and leave pay. He, therefore, requested the Department to recommend his case to the management to pay his gratuity and one months notice pay according to law. On this application the Labour Department by its letter No. 2/4/54/1926/m. O. dated 23-12-54 stated that the management was required under Section 25-F (a) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1953 to give one months notice in case of termination of service of any worker and in lieu of notice one months wages are to be paid to the worker; that under Section 25-F (b) of the said Act the management has to pay 15 days wages for every completed year of service in such cases; that the worker has been paid only 15 days wages, whereas he is still to get 15 days wages in lieu of notice as per Section 25-F (a) and that he is entitled to gratuity for 81/2 years amounting to Rs. 405/1-as required under Section 25-F (b) of the said Act. The petitioner was directed to pay these amounts immediately to the 5th respondent under intimation to the Officer. The petitioner by their letter dated 2-2-1955 stated that the 5th respondent had received the amounts in full and final settlement and had also signed accordingly. It further informed the Labour Department that though the 5th respondents work was found to be very unsatisfactory and that though there was no improvement in spite of repeated warnings and re-quests etc. , he was given a last chance some months back and he had then given a letter admitting his mistakes and stating that in future if his work is not found satisfactory, his service may be immediately terminated; and that as there was no improvement his services were terminated. Subsequently the Labour Department again wrote to the petitioner asking it to pay Rs. 450. 00 failing which it was asked to show cause within 15 days from the receipt of the letter why the amount should not be recovered from it as arrears of laud revenue under Section 25 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1953. Accordingly this was replied to by the petitioner. The Labour Department did not change its view and again informed the petitioner by its letter No. 1/3418 dated 4/08/1955 that the amount of Rs. 450. 00 was due and that the same should be paid within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, to the employee. The petitioner by their letters No-3. 7693 dated 10-8-1955 and 7032 dated 22-8-1955 challenged the enquiry made by the Asst. Secretary, Labour Department and his jurisdiction to hold such enquiry. It thus denied that the worker was retrenched and stated that his services were terminated by way of disciplinary action. A copy of the termination order was enclosed. It appears thereafter that the Labour Department directed the Collector to take proceedings under Section 25 (1) which was before its deletion in 1956 by Act 36. The notice of termination given by the petitioner is as follows: "this morning you were instructed to get certain bottles wrapped and packed
