JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be the General Secretary of his Union viz., Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha, Mumbai. He claims to have been authorised to file this petition on behalf of the two employees of the respondent company. It was the petitioner himself who had filed an application under section 50 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on behalf of the two employees viz., Shri K.N. Nagesha Rao and Shri Shamnandan Pande who appear to have authorised the petitioner to present the said application before the Industrial Court to pray for a recovery certificate against the respondent company to receive the money on behalf of the aforesaid two employees. The petitioner has prayed for a certificate for Rs. 1,56,901/- for Shri Pande and for Rs. 1,55,961/- for Shri Rao as money due and payable by the respondent company to the aforesaid employees, who appeared to have been retired and who are not presently in Mumbai within the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. In nutshell, the facts relevant for our purpose are summarised as under:-

The petitioner has based the claim of both the aforesaid field force employees on the order dated 27th July, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 751 of 1984 which appear to have been confirmed in the Supreme Court. According to the Industrial Court (Shri G.S. Baj), the respondent company had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act and it was, therefore, directed to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and that the company was directed to take such affirmative action as to implement the provisions of the agreement of 1957 and settlement of 1971 and pay all the arrears of amount due and payable within the period of 3 months to the members of field force. The operative order of the Industrial Court has been correctly reproduced by the learned Member of the Industrial Court (C.J. Shaikh) in his para 11, page 191 of the paper book in the presently impugned order.

3. The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to issue such certificate in exercise of its powers under section 50 of the Act, mainly on the following three grounds:---

i) the concerned employees were employed outside the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court viz., at Madras and Madhya Pradesh at Bhillai. They were never employed at Mumbai and therefore, the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to issue such recovery certificate:

ii) Though the question of entitlement was decided by the Industrial Court, no exact amount was determined as payable to the said employees and, therefore, no recovery certificate can be issued under section 50 of the Act. There was no final determination of the exact amount or sums due and payable by the respondent company to the said employees. This question would require final determination or adjudication which cannot be done under section 50 of the Act. The petitioner who had filed the said application had no locus to file such an application on behalf of said two employees.

iii) The Industrial Court upheld the contentions of the company and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. In the opinion of the learned Member of the Industrial Court there were some triable issues raised by the company which require adjudication. According to the Industrial Court, the amounts were disputed and they require to be determined and computed as contemplated under section 50 read with Regulation 140(a) and Form 24.

4. The Industrial Court has held that under section 50 of the Act, a recovery certificate can be issued only if the amount due and payable is finally determined and computed by some authority and the person who is liable to pay has not obeyed the said order. Shri Rele has supported the reasoning given by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. He has further pointed out that most of the employees had settled the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document