The Labour Commissioner lacks the authority to pass final orders in a conciliation proceeding, the Government cannot order recovery of money found due by the Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proceeding under Sec.20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, and a proceeding initiated under the Public Demands Recovery Act for the recovery of money not specified as due in an award is invalid.

Ahmad, J.

1. The petitioner in this case is a limited concern Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd. It has got a rule issued from this Court against the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or certiorari, or, in the alternative, direction should not be issued forbearing them from giving effect to the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner on 21-2-1953 and 29-4-1953, and restraining them from taking any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1950 and also for quashing two orders one passed by the Government under Sec.20 of the aforesaid Act and communicated to the Sub-divisional Officer, Gopalganj, on 20-2-1954, and the other passed by the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, whereby he has started, a certificate case No. 331 of 1953-54 for the recovery of Rs. 23,790/1/3 against the Directors of Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd.

2. The dispute giving rise to the present application is in substance the outcome of some difference between the parties over the interpretation of an award dated 26-9-1950, given under -the Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947) by the Industrial Tribunal of which the Hon ble Mr. Justice B. P. Sinha (as he then was) was the sole member.

3. It appears that in the early part of the year 1950 some dispute arose between the employers and workmen of the petitioner company Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd. For the adjudication of that dispute the Government under Section 7, Indus- trial Disputes Act by an order dated 6-2-1950, constituted an Industrial Tribunal with Hon ble Mr. Justice B.P. Sinha (as he then was) as its sole member, and under Sec.10 of the Act referred to that Tribunal a number of points for adjudication. One of the points referred to it, which has given rise to the present application, was : "The retaining allowance for the off-season to be paid if any". The award, given by the Tribunal on 25-9-1950, was published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, on 5-10-1950. The finding given therein on the issue of retaining allowance was to the effect that the skilled workmen and clerks should get at the rate of 50 per cent, of their wages during the off-season and semi-skilled ones at the rate of 25 per cent. thereof. A list was also given in the award classifying therein broadly the skilled and semi-skilled jobs with a note attached thereto in the following words :

"It should be noted that the list given above of skilled and semi-skilled jobs is illustrative of the nature of the work done, and not exhaustive of the description, that is to say, irrespective of the description, or nomenclature given by particular factories to their workmen, it is the job, and not the description attaching to it, which will determine the question of whether the particular man is or is not entitled to retaining allowance."

Against the award, an appeal was taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India under Section 7, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1950. The main controversy in appeal between the parties on the point of retaining allowance was as to who among the workmen was to be considered as skilled and semi-skilled labour and as such entitled to get retaining allowance. The Appellate Tribunal on hearing the parties gave its decision on 7-3-1951 which was published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 26-3-1951. Therein it held : "We think that we should maintain the list given in the award".

4. It appears from the counter-affidavit sworn by opposite party No. 4, the Secretary of the Sasamusa Sugar Workers Union, that while the matter was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, a conciliation proceeding for the settlement of the difference over the award had also started on 3-3-1951 and it was decided therein that the Commissioner of Labour would issue clarification of the award, if necessary, after the order of the Appellate Tribunal had been given and in the meantime the parties were advised to discuss the matt