Dispute s to right to retrenchment pay.

An order of the Government directing recovery of arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 828-2-6 from the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition as ultra vires and beyond their jurisdiction.

The petitioner is C.B.R. Ratnam and Company which is a proprietory concern carrying on business as mechanical engineers. One D. Ekambaram, the first respondent in this writ petition was a foreman employed in the petitioner’s firm He ceased to be so employed on and from 12th December, 1955. This Ekambaram complained about this by his letter of even date stating that the employer had improperly terminated his services and also asking for reasons as to why his services were dispensed with.

A few days later he brought this improper discharge from service to the notice of the Labour Officer and requested him to take up this for conciliation and get him re-instated. The Labour Officer issued notice to the petitioner and held an enquiry into the workman’s complaint. While these matters were pending the workman filed an application before the Government on 6th January, 1956, stating that he had been retrenched by the proprietor and was therefore, entitled to compensation for such retrenchment under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947). In this application he prayed that a sum of Rs. 960, computed by him as per the provisions of the Act and payable to him by way of retrenchment compensation might be collected from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and made over to him. The enquiry before the Labour Officer went on and in the course of this the petitioner here urged two maters (1) that the claim by the workman on the footing that he had been working for a continuous period of twelve years was incorrect and (2) that the workman was constantly absenting himself from duty without leave and that he turned up for work on 10th December, 1955 and that then an explanation was called for as regards his absence, he left the employment voluntarily stating that he would seek remedy through Labour Tribunals. On this latter ground it was contended that the employee was not one whose services had been terminated on account of retrenchment so as to give rise to a claim for compensation for retrenchment under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Officer completed his enquiry and evidently submitted some report to the Government about which the employer was not informed. The Government thereupon passed an order on 10th July, 1955, which after reciting the application from the workman dated 6th January, 1955 and the report from the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, dated 8th May, 1956 went on in its operative portion to state

“The Government after careful consideration are satisfied that the amount of Rs. 829-2-6 is payable to the workman as compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1147, and that the Management of C. B. R. Ratnam and Co., 18, Wallers Road, Mount Road, is liable to pay the said compensation” .

“As the management has failed to pay the compensation, the Government hereby direct the Collector of Madras to take necessary action in pursuance of section 25(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the said sum of Rs. 829-2-6 due to the said workman from the said management as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand and to disburse the amount so received to the said workman.”

It is the legality of this order that is challenged in this writ petition.

The provision in regard to the payment of compensation in the event of retrenchment was introduced by Central Act (XLIII of 1953) amending the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This amending Act introduced a new chapter, Chapter V-A dealing with lay-off and retrenchment. Sections 25-A to 25-E dealt with compensation in the event of lay-off and Section 25-F to 25-H with conditions subject to which a workman might be retrenched and the compensation payable to him in that event. In relation to the question involved