The State Government's authority under Section 25-I of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood before the 1956 amendment, was limited to cases where the liability for compensation was pre-determined or ascertained, and did not extend to investigating disputes or determining liability under Section 25-F.

1. This is an application made on behalf of the petitioner, Sree Behariji Mills Ltd., for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the certificate proceeding started against the petitioner in case No. 102 M. C. of 1955/56 pending in the Court of the Certificate Officer of Patna.

2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and owns and runs Flour, Oil, Rice and Dal Mills in Mahalla Bharatpur Simri of Patna City. Opposite parties 5 to 12 were employed by the petitioner in the working of the Mills, but on account of old age and ill-health they became unfit for work. The case of the petitioner is that a notice was given to opposite parties 5 to 12 saying that they would retire with effect from the 1st. March 1955, on payment of one months salary in lieu of notice and gratuity according to the terms of settlement arrived at between the management and the workmens Union. Opposite party No. 4 is Patna City Mazdoor Union and its case is that the retirement of opposite parties 5 to 12 was unauthorised and it was really a case of retrenchment and under Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act the workmen were entitled to compensation.

It appears that there was an enquiry by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in the matter and no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. It is alleged On behalf of the petitioner that on the 18th January 1956, the Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Labour Department, filed a certificate of public demand for a sum of Rs. 7,242 and odd against the petitioner before the Certificate Officer of Patna. The legal validity of this certificate proceeding was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the certificate proceeding was ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

3. Cause has been shown in this case on behalf of Patna City Mazdoor Union, opposite party No. 4, and also on behalf of opposite parties 5 to 12, the workmen concerned, in the dispute. Cause has also been shown by learned Government Pleader on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3.

4. The main question presented for determination in this case is whether the certificate proceeding taken against the petitioner is ultra vires and beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government. On behalf of the petitioner reference is made to Sec.25-I of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947) as it stood before the amendment made by amending Act XXXVI of 1956. Sec.25-I as it stood before the amendment is in the following terms:

"Any money due from an employer under the provisions of this Chapter, whether by way of compensation or by way of wages, may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue or as a public demand by the appropriate Government on an application made to it by the person entitled to the money."

In this connection learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner also referred to Sec.25-F which runs thus:

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - (a) The workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government."

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government has no authority to make investigation into the dispute between the workmen and the employer or to determine whether it is a