The appropriate government lacks jurisdiction under Section 33C(1) to issue recovery orders without prior adjudication of the workers' claims, emphasizing that such claims must arise from recognized and pre-existing rights.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition to quash the order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No. BSP-7(03)/2018-RLC by Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur (C.G.) by which the respondent No.1 issued direction under Section 33 (C)(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 directing the petitioner to calculate and determine the claim amount and ascertain the “Money Due” as per Bhave Award passed in Reference Case No. 6/89 or in accordance with the settlement dated 22.09.1992 or where it may be worked out without any dispute in respect of Shree Niwas Gurijala & 134 others after identification & verification of the workers within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the show cause notice dated 15.04.2019 & 22.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) by which the respondent No. 2 has directed the petitioner why suitable legal action shall not be initiated against the petitioner by issuing revenue recovery certificate to the competent authority under Section 33 (C) (1) of the I.D. Act 1947 for recovery of Rs. 55,807,4256.38 of 135 workers mentioned in the list.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that on 23.09.1989 a settlement was arrived at between the SECL, Hasdeo Area and MPKMS(HMS) under Section 10 -A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 to refer a dispute with regard to the regularisation of contractual workers to an Arbitrator appointed by the appropriate Government. Accordingly, the matter was sent to the Arbitrator on the following terms of reference:-

“Whether the demand of the Union for departmentalization of contractual work/workers for Tub-Repairing Jobs of Hasdeo Area is justified? If not, to what relief the workers would be entitled to?"

3. The said reference was registered as Reference No. 6/89 and the learned Arbitrator has passed the award on 30.08.1990 by recording its finding in paragraph 6.16 of its award as under:-

“on the basis of list of workmen submitted by the union to ALC(C)/CLC(C) to the management an enquiry already caused through SAMs, even before April 1988 now for the management to say that the union’s list may not be given congnizence does not appear to be proper, when the list at W-7 filed in case No. 3/89 was admitted and not denied by SECL. Similarly, the RKKMS(INTUC) have filed list of 26 workmen, 22 from South JKD and 4 from North JKD during Arbitration No. 10/11/89 at W-8 in case No. 4/89. These documents was not denied by the SECL. 6.16.1- The S.K.M.S(AITUC) in case No. 5/89 and NCWF in case No. 6/89 had not filed any such list before Arbitrator. However, in oral evidence the SKMS has produced two witness ww-1 and ww-2 both from Rajnangar Colliery, NCWF had produced two witnesses from Bijuri and one from Rajnagar. WW-1 was ex-workman from Bijuri, WW-2 from Rajnangar Colliery and WW-3 from Bijuri deposed that they were contractual workmen o