The Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition and issue a recovery certificate under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unless the amount due has been ascertained by the Labour Court or in pursuance of a settlement or award.

R.P.Khosla, J.

1. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 16,185/- in respect of a recovery certificate granted by the Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 2.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that the petitioner, a motor transport private limited company (hereafter to be referred as Company) plied buses from Muktsar on several routes. It appears that on a dispute arising between the employer transport company and its workmen on 9-6-1955, a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the company and the workmen had been arrived at and to view of item No. 10 of the settlement, which is in the following terms--

"10. The management agrees to fix headquarters of the workers and to pay night allowance as per award of the Industrial Tribunal in Kartar Bus, Jullundur, if the worker is required to remain out of headquarters" (Annexure R/1). though the headquarters, as contemplated had not yet been fixed the workers lodged a claim before the Labour Commissioner in respect thereof und obtained a certificate for recovery for the amount of Rs. 16,185/- against the company. The recovery certificate bore the date 21st of June, 1958. Before the said recovery certificate and after the settlement referred to, the workmen had taken some points again in dispute, including "whether the headquarters of the workmen should be fixed at least for six months" to the Labour Court at Amritsar and by its order dated 3-2-1958, the Labour Court had settled the matter as point No. 2 of the said order, i. e., "the headquarters of the workmen, who want them to be fixed, will not be changed for at least four months."

There appears to be no material on the record that the headquarters of the workmen at any stage or at all had been fixed. In fact, the averment in the petition contained in para 4 "that none of the workmen has so far required the petitioner company to fix his headquarters" has not been denied by the answering respondents.

3. The petition relating to the claim, the basis of the recovery certificate, was said to have been made by the workmen to the Labour Commissioner on the 20th of April, 1958. The said application was on behalf of thirty-four persons claiming night allowance on the basis of item No. 10 of the settlement dated the 9th of June, 1955, for remaining away from the head office.

It transpires that the Labour Commissions caused a letter to issue to the company to show cause in this respect on 24th of May, 1958, and on no response having been made an ex parte order resulted followed by the issuance of a certificate for the recovery of Rs. 16,185/- which was sent to the Tehsildar for recovery of the amount as arrears fit land revenue. The. document received by the company and attached to the petition is Annexure B.

The said document reciting the charge of Rs. 16,185/- and seeking to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue gave rise to the cause, subject-matter of this writ application. The application challenges that the order was wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Bhagirath Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioning transport company grounded the attack on the following objections :-

-

(1) Headquarters not having yet been fixed as contemplated by item 10 of the settlement dated the 9th of June, 1955, referred to above, no ground for any claim could have arisen to the workmen.

(2) There was no evidence and material to come to the conclusion that the calculation of the amount in question had been made according to the award in Kartar Bus Service as laid down in said item No. 10 of the settlement dated the 9th of June, 1955. ; Apart from these two questions of fact, which as already stated have not been controverted by the respondents, the basic objection, namely, that the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the