Back
Rajasthan High Court
Sachar, J.
Municipal Board, Merta - Appellant
Versus
The Labour Commissioner, Raj., Jaipur - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1956
Decided On : February 22, 1976
The petitioner had a power house which generated electricity and supplied it to the town of Merta. Respondents Nos 6 to 31 were the employees of the petitioner. The power house was taken over by the Rajasthan State Electricity Boar J, respondent No. 2 and respondents Nos. 6 to 31 were thereafter transferred to respondent No. 2 On 6.4.71 an application was moved by respondents Nos. 6 to 31 under sec. 33C(1) of the Indu-strial Disputes Act claiming that they were entitled to retrenchment compen-sation from the petitioner and that order may be passed in that connection. The respondent No. 1 after considering the merits of the case and considering that no liability arose to pay retrenchment benefit to the former employees of the Municipal Board who had been transferred to the new employer respondent No. 2 it held that retrenchment benefit was to be paid to respondents Nos. 6 to 31 by the petitioner. It therefore directed that a certificate for recovery of the said amount be issued.
The main contention of the petitioner is that an application under sec. 33C(1) of the Act was not maintainable as the said provision applies only if there is an admitted liability and the amount had been ascertained and that the same cannot be said in the present case because the petitioner was disputing that he was liable to pay any retrenchment compensation.
On a plain reading of sec. 33G(!) if any money is due to a workman under the provisions of Chapter VA he can apply to the appropriate Government under sec. 33G(1) This is what the respondents Nos. 6 to 31 did. Under sec 33-C(2) Labour Court does not lose its jurisdiction merely because the claim is disputed and it has been held that if it is necessary the existence of a right can also be determined by the labour court. Retrenchment compensation is being claimed under Sec. 25-FF which forms a part of Chapter-VA. Sec. 33-C(1) clearly says that where money is due to a workman under the provisions of Chapter-VA an application can be made to the appropriate Government. The claim of respondents Nos 6 to 31 is not a claim which they wished to have it first determined Rather their case is that their right has already been determined under the provisions of Chapter VA. The proviso to sec. 25FF being inapplicable respondents Nos. 6 to 31s case falls with-in the ambit of sec. 25FF. In this view the liability of the petitioner to pay compensation to respondents Nos. 6 to 31 was undisputed It therefore has to be held that the petitioner was liable to pay retrenchment compensation and that the respondent was under the circumstances of the case competent to determine the point of liability of the petitioner. (Paras 2, 3, 5 & 6)
2. The petitioner had a power house which generated electricity and supplied it to the town of Merta. Respondents Nos. 6 to 31 were the employees of the petitioner. The power house was taken over by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent No. 2 and respondents Nos. 6 to 31 were thereafter transferred to respondent No. 2. On 6-4 71 an application was moved by respondent Nos. 6 to 31 under sec. 33G(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be called "the Act") to the Board respondent No. 1 claiming that they were entitled to retrenchment compensation from the petitioner and that order may be passed in that connection. A statement showing the compensation due to each of the respondents was attached along with the petition which showed a total of Rs. 28,353/- as retrenchment compensation. On a notice having been issued by respondent No. 1 the petitioner Board did not file any reply though a reply was filed by respondent No. 2 Electricity Board in which it was pleaded that if the employees are entitled to any compensation the same could only be recovered from the Municipal Board and not from the respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 1 considered this matter by its order dated 18-12-71 and took the view that the respondents Nos. 6 to 31 could raise this dispute either as an industrial dispute or under sec. 33C(2) of the Act and that their application for payment of retrenchment benefit was not maintainable as he had no jurisdiction to do so. It seems however that the next day it was brought to his notice that some orders had been passed in the case of power house. Barmer and he therefore decided to review the matter in the light of that. On 16 9-72 the petitioner Board appeared before respondent No. 4 and took the stand that it had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of the decision of 1969 LLJ Vol. II, 728 U.P. Electric Supply Go. Ltd. vs. Shukla & sons. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 13-10-72 and thereafter to 24-10 72. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter had to be adjourned to 24-11-72. On that day also no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and a telegram was sent for adjournment of the case and the respondent No. 1 therefore adjourned the matter. The next date fixed was 31-1-73 and on that day also nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner but the Chairman, Municipal Board sent a telegram for adjournment of the case without specifying the reason for adjournment. As respondent No. 1 did not see any justification to adjourn this request was refused and the respondent No. 1 after considering the merits of the case and considering that no liability arose to pay retrenchment benefit to the former employees of the Municipal Board who had been transferred to the new employer respondent No. 2 it held that retrenchment benefit was to be paid to respondents Nos. 6 to 31 by the petitioner. It therefore directed that a certificate for recovery of the said amount be issued. It appears that subsequently the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 for saying the certificate of recovery but the same was refused by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 4-7-74. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 15-7-71 impugning the order of respondent No. 1 dated 31-1-73.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that an application under sec. 33C(1) of the Act was not maintainable as the said provision applies only if there is an admitted liability and the amount had been ascertained and that the same cannot be said in the present case because the petitioner was disputing that he was liable to pay any retrenchment comp
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
