J.S. VERMA, C.J.—The petitioner was an employee in the Mahalaxmi Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar since 1947. He was also an active Trade Unionist. The management of the mills was taken over by the Central Government with effect from January 9, 1967 and an Authorised Controller was appointed under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. During continuance of the management of the Government through the Auth-rised Controller, on January 19, 1973 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner for alleged mis-conduct and he was dismissed by the Authorised Controller on April 16, 1973 Petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his service which led to a reference of the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court. In the meantime the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the 1974 Act) came into force resulting investing of the rights of owner of the Mills in the Central Government and then being transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corpora ion. The Labour Court rejected the petitioners claim on the ground that no relief could be granted against the owner of the textile undertaking which had been nationalised as also the Government or the National Textile Corporation. In short, it has been held that the effect of this change over has been to deprive the petitioner of his right to get any relief against anyone. Hence this petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to relief against the National Textile Corporation since the matter falls within the ambit of section 5(2)(c) and section 17(1) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel), for the petitioner on the decision in the Workmen. Vs. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (!) involving construction of corresponding provisions contained in the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. In reply, learned counsel for the National Textile Corporation contended that the dispute relating to a workman dismissed prior to nationalisation of the Undertaking under the 1974 Act abates since it is not saved by section 4(6) and section 5(3) of the Act. It was urged that the matter does not fall within the ambit of section 5(2) or section 17(1) of the Act. It was urged in the alternative that the relief, if any, can be given only against the owner of the sick undertaking and not against the National Textile Corporation.

3. The only real controversy emerging from the rival contentions is, whether this matter falls within section 5(2)(c) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974? It is common ground that if the answer is in the affirmative then only the National Textile Corporation would be liable. No other point was raised on behalf of the respondents. The result, therefore, is that if it is held that the matter is covered by section 5(2)(c) of the 1974 Act then the petitioner would be entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages against the National Textile Corporation since the petitioners claim has not been contested on any other basis throughout.

4. A brief resume of the events leading to nationalisation of this textile undertaking may be given. The management of several textile undertakings was taken over by the Central Government under the Industries (Development and (Regulation) Act, 1951. Thereafter the management of many more textile undertakings was taken over by the Central Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1972 pending their nationalisation in public interest. With a view to reorganising and rehabilitating the said textile undertakings in general public interest it became necessary to nationalise the said undertakings. To achieve this object, the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 was enacted to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the sick textile undertakings and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document