SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 345

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
RIICO Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court (Dr. Kothari, J.)
HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.
RIICO Ltd. Bhilwara
Versus
Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Ors.

Advocates Appeared
Sanjeet Purohit, for Petitioner-RIICO;
R.S. Saluja, for Respondents/Workmen

Headnote:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10192 of 2012 (Along-with connected 48 writ petitions), decided on 06.03.2014

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sec. 33-C(2) — Fastening liability to pay the dues of workmen on a third party — RPL was employer of workmen — Defaulted in repayment of loans — Petitioners u/S. 29 of State Financial Act took over its assets and realized its own dues in 2007 by sale in auction, still fell short of its outstanding dues — Labour Court in 2012 held both petitioner RIICO and employer to pay the dues of workmen — Held — The provisions of Sec. 33C(2) have no application on third party i.e. RIICO as it was neither `Employer' of the workmen nor a party to settlement between the workmen and the employer — Recovery had already been made way back in 2007 when the Labour Court passed order on 14.6.2012 — Order quashed and set aside to this extent, contrary to law. (Paras 22 to 27)

       Writ petition allowed.

        vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] /kkjk 33-x¼2½ & deZdkj ds cdk;k dk Hkqxrku djus dk nkf;Ro r`rh; i{kdkj ij Mkyuk & vkj-ih-,y- deZdkj dk fu;ksDrk Fkk & _.k jkf'k ds iquZHkqXkrku dk O;frØe fd;k & izkFkhZ us jkT; foRrh; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 29 ds rgr mldh ifjlEifr;ksa ij dCtk fy;k vkSj mudh uhykeh esa foØ; ds }kjk o"kZ 2007 esa viuk cdk;k olwy fd;k fQj Hkh mldh cdk;k jkf'k de iM+ xbZ & o"kZ 2012 esa Je U;k;ky; us deZdkj ds cdk;k dk Hkqxrku djus gsrq jhdks ,oa fu;ksDrk nksuksa dks nk;h Bgjk;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 33-x ¼2½ ds izko/kku r`rh; i{kdkj] jhdks ij ykxw ugha gksrs D;ksafd ;g deZdkj dk u rks dksbZ fu;ksDrk Fkk vkSj u gh deZdkj vkSj fu;ksDrk ds e/; le>kSrs dk i{kdkj Fkk & olwyh o"kZ 2007 esa gh dh tk pqdh Fkh tcfd Je U;k;ky; us ;g vkns'k fnukad 14-6-2012 dks ikfjr fd;k & mDr vkns'k fof/k fo:) gksus ds dkj.k mDr lhek rd vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 22 ls 27½

       ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA

       

JUDGMENT : -

Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—These cases as per Schedule annexed, are being disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner- Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation ('RIICO' for short), against the order of learned Labour Court, Bhilwara, passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('Act of 1947' for short) dated 14.06.2012.

2. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present writ petitions by RIICO are like this.

3. A limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, known as Rajasthan Processors Engineering Ltd., Ajmer Road, Bhilwara (Employer/company), was the employer of the respondents/workmen. The said Employer/company, however, defaulted in repayment of the loans to the present petitioner-RIICO and in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (Act of 1951), the petitioner RIICO, took over the assets mortgaged with it and sold the same to one M/s Kanchan (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2007. The sale proceeds of the assets to the extent of approximately Rs.2.51 crores, still fell short of the outstanding dues of the petitioner-RIICO and co-financial company, viz. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC) against the defaulter, RPL (I) Ltd., Bhilwara.

4. The respondents/workmen, approached the learned Labour Court for payment of their dues of salary and wages, which was not paid to them, for the year 2000 when the said company was running and by the impugned order the Labour Court, Bhilwara, such dues have been determined by the Labour Court in the case of individual workmen by the impugned order and which total up to Rs.14.90 lacs approx. The petitioner-RIICO was also impleaded as a party-respondent before the learned Labour Court along-with defaulter company RPL (I) Ltd., who remained exparte and did not defend or refute the said claim of the respondents/workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947; and the petitioner RIICO denied the said claim, inter-alia, on the ground that RIICO was not the 'Employer' of the workmen and secondly, the RIICO was not liable to pay the said dues of workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 as they were never a party to the Tripartite settlement of due salary and wages to the workmen. The said settlement dated 29.11.2000 was relied upon by the learned Labour Court for determining the said dues in favour of workmen. The three parties of the said settlement between the workmen were, (1) workmen through their Union, (2) Employer-Company RPL (I) Ltd. and (3) Deputy Labour Commissioner, and the present petitioner- RIICO was not a party to the said settlement/agreement at all.

5. By the impugned order dated 14.06.2012, the learned Labour Court, however, has held that dues of the workmen determined under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, are liable to be paid by both the respondents, the company RPL (I) Lt.d an the the petitioner- RIICO and to the extent aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- RIICO, has filed the present set of writ petitions before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Elaborating the submissions before this Court, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner RIICO has urged that the Trade Union representing the cause of the respondents/workmen, namely, “Mahamantri, Bhartiya Processors Shramik Sangh, Bhilwara.”, has filed a writ petition before this Court, being S.B.C.W.P. No.4791/2006- Bhartiya Processors Shramik Sangh, Bhilwara vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., including the company and the petitioner (RIICO) and in the said pending writ petition, an interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.02.2007 to the effect that the petitioner-RIICO, may proceed with finalizing the sale of the unit acquired by it, however, appropriate sale proceeds interest of the workmen (Petitioners of CW No.4991/2006) may be safeguarded. The said writ petitione






















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top