The Proprietor of a business is liable for obligations despite discrepancies in the business name, and technical objections should not impede the enforcement of awards under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT:

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

3. The Petitioner claiming to be the Employee of Respondent No. 3 preferred an Application before the Labour Commissioner under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under the award dated 20.11.2018 in Reference No. IT/11/16, claiming the amount awarded together with interest from 20.11.2018. The learned Labour Commissioner, though issued notice to the Employer [Respondent No. 3], accepted the objections of Respondent No. 3 and dismissed the said Application on 18th/19th October 2023, which is challenged in the present Petition.

4. Mr. Gaonkar would submit that the dispute was raised by the Union before the Conciliation Officer on 28.12.2012, upon which, notice was issued to the Employer. He candidly admitted that while raising the dispute, the Employer was shown as M/s Vishal Shipping Company Private Limited, Vasco, however, in particular, all the disputes/claims, were clearly disclosing that the workmen were employed as Crew on the barge, namely, M.V. Mahima MRH 611 and they were not paid salary from July 2012 to December 2012. He submits that Respondent No. 3 appeared before the Conciliation Officer as a Proprietor and sought time. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 failed to appear before the Conciliation Officer and accordingly, a failure report was submitted.

5. Mr. Gaonkar would submit that once the conciliation proceedings were admitted and the notice was issued, the dispute was duly raised before the concerned Authority and therefore, the proceedings commenced. Mr. Gaonkar would then submit that thereafter, Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, which was registered as Reference No. IT/11/16 wherein the statement of claim was filed by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 3 was duly served in the said Reference but remained absent. Accordingly, an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 20.11.2018 directing to pay monetary compensation within 60 days together with interest to the Petitioner.

6. Mr. Gaonkar would submit that Respondent No. 3 even challenged the said award by filing Writ Petition No. 178 of 2022, however, such Petition was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 06.07.2023.

7. Mr. Gaonkar would submit that the Recovery Certificate is issued by the Commissioner, however, since no payment was made, the Petitioner filed an Application before the Labour Commissioner under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected by the impugned order.

8. Mr. Gaonkar would submit that once Respondent No. 3 appeared before the Conciliation Officer, it is clear that the proceedings commenced and the dispute was raised and at that time, Respondent No. 3 never took such a plea that the name of the Company mentioned in the conciliation proceedings is incorrect. He submits that such ground taken by Respondent No. 3 is only an afterthought in order to avoid the payment awarded to the Petitioner. He submits that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, though challenged before this Court, was not disturbed as Writ Petition No. 178 of 2022 filed by Respondent No. 3 was withdrawn and therefore, Respondent No. 3 now cannot turn around and say that he is not the same person. Mr. Gaonkar would submit that Respondent No. 3 was clearly identified by name and address as the Proprietor of the said Company and therefore, only the mistake in mentioning the name of the Company cannot be considered to be detrimental to the award. He submits that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is binding on all the parties. Since the dispute started on the date of filing the conciliation, Respondent No. 3 became a party to the dispute. He would then submit that the notice forwarded to Respondent No. 3 by the Industrial Tribunal came “unclaimed”, therefore, it was sufficient service.

9. As against this, Mr. Zeller De Sousa appearing for R