The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the labour court in determining the amount payable to the employee and the limitations of the Commissioner of Labour's power under S. 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 1 ) THE respondent 4, K. Puttaswami, was the sub-editor of a Kannada daily called Janavani conducted by the petitioner, Mysore Press (Private), Ltd. , Basavangudi, Bangalore-4. He was removed from service on 1 July, 1957. That removal was the subject of an industrial dispute raised by the Mysore Journalists' Association. The State Government, in exercise of their power under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to the labour court at bangalore. The points of dispute so referred were -

(1) Is the management justified in terminating the services of K. Puttaswami, sub-editor, janavani, from 1 July, 1957 on alleged grounds of retrenchment ? (2) Is the Mysore State Journalists' Association justified in demanding that K. Puttaswami be reinstated into his original post, with full compensation for the entire period of involuntary unemployment ? If not, to what relief, if any, is the affected workman entitled ?

( 2 ) THE labour court went into the matter, took evidence tendered by the parties and made an award on 19 March, 1960 which was published in the Mysore Gazette, dated 26 May, 1960. The decision or the conclusions of the Court are set out in Para. 45 of the award which reads as follows :

"paragraph 45.- Lastly I have to look into the matter of relief, whether the said employee should be ordered to be reinstated with back-wages or not. Regarding reinstatement, I did not find any valid ground to reject it but as far as back-wages the press has alleged that it incurred a heavy loss as has been evident by the profit and loss accounts for the years 1955 and 1956. On the perusal of the profit and loss account for the year 1955 marked as Ex. M. 6 in the debit side it is shown as 'net profit for the year before writing off bad debts and providing for depreciation and doubtful debts' carried over Rs. 77,702-13-9. On the second page of Ex. M. 6 that amount of net profit has been set off against bad debts written off. In the year 1956 ending 31 December, 1956 on the side of the debit it has been shown as 'balance, being profit for the year (without providing for depreciation and doubtful debts) carried down' Rs. 37,782-11-4 and after providing for depreciation and doubtful debts it has been brought into loss. The figures that have been shown in the profit and loss accounts for the years 1955 and 1956 required further scrutiny and on the basis of the figures that have been brought on record Exs. M. 5 and 6, it was hard to find out whether the concern was actually running in loss. The press has earned a considerable amount of profit, but it was set off against providing for depreciation and bad debts. The press has also filed the balance sheets for those two years, but they are not originals and no certificate is attached to them by the chartered accounts. Hence I give up this matter for the determination of the management itself and it is learnt that there is a change in the management and the general manager has resigned the post. I thought it proper to provide such an opportunity for the board of directors to reconsider and allow the back-wages to which K. Puttaswami is entitled. Thus I conclude both the issues accordingly in favour of the first party. "

( 3 ) APPARENTLY acting on the direction of the labour court in the said paragraph the board of directors of the petitioner-company determined that a sum of Rs. 700 would be a reasonable amount to be paid to respondent 4 on account of back-wages. Respondent 4 did not accept the figure as reasonable and approached the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (respondent 2) with a request to take action under S. 33c (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to collect from the petitioner and pay him full back-wages which alone, according to the petitioner, was the reasonable thing to do in a accordance with the award of the labour court. In the first instance, the Commissioner of Labour appears to have taken the view that the labour court not having d