Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and R. C. Shrivastava, J.
L.S.NAIR - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 574 Of 1975
Decided On : 01/01/1980
(Para 4)
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP)-Ss. 1 & 12-enacted under entries 6, 7 & 46 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution-its provisions will not prevail over the public Premises Act enacted under the same entries-both Acts cannot stand together-Constitution of India-Art. 254 (2).
(3) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-S. 1-over rides the earlier M.P. Accommodation Control Act-giving it retrospective effect does not make it earlier Act-Constitution of India-Art. 254 (2).
(4) Constitution of India-Art 254 (2) - two Acts covering the same field and cannot stand together-the later Act should prevail-giving it retrospective effect will not make it earlier Act.
The M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and the Public Premises Act. 1971 were both enacted under entries 6, 7 and 46 of the concurrent list.
The Public Premises Act was enoacted in 1971 and being a law later to the Accommodation Control Act will prevail over it in view of the proviso to Article 254 (2) of the Constitution, in spite of the fact that the Accommodation Control Act had received the assent of the President The effect of the Public Premises Act is that accommodations belonging to Government companies are taken out from the operation of the Accommodation Control Act and are exclusively governed by the former because the two Acts in this respect cannot stand together. AIR 1970 SC 228 relied on.
The fact that the Public Premises Act, 1971 was given retrospective effect from 1958 will not make it an earlier Act.
(Para 7)
(5) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1971- S. 2(g)-'unauthorised occupation' - meaning of-service of an employee terminated-his occupation becomes unauthorised- Estate Officer need not wait for the decision of the Labour Court.
The Estate Officer functioning under the Public Premises Act has no jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of the termination of service of an employee. He has to proceed upon the footing that the termination of service is valid until set aside by the Labour Court. There is nothing in the definition of "unauthorised occupation" which may indicate that in such cases the Estate Officer will have no jurisdiction to evict a person from a quarter until the dispute relating to termination of service is finally decided by the Labour Court.
(Para 8)
(6) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-S. 8-Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings for recovery of damages.
(7) Limitation Act, 1963-S 1- applicability of the Act.
The Limitation Act has no application to proceedings before the Estate Officer who is not a Court.
As the Limitation Act has no application to proceedings before the Estate Officer and as the jurisdiction of civil Court is entirely barred in matters governed by the Public Premises Act, it is difficult to accept the argument that there is any period of limitation for recovery of damages 67 Punj. LR 1190 distinguished.
(Para 10)
(8) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-S. 2(g)-'unauthorised possession'-employee reinstated by the Labour Court - the Labour Court is empowered to pass any appropriate order in respect of the premises and the damages awarded by the Estate Officer.
(9) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MP)-S. 31- termination or service held invalid by the Labour Court-like the back wages the Labour Court may pass any order with respect to the premises occupied by the employee and its damages awarded by the Estate Officer.
If the petitioner is ultimately granted reinstatement in the proceedings before the Labour Court and if in the meantime, the petitioner is evicted and required to pay damages, the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to give proper relief to the petitioner in the same manner as it is competent to award back wages. Just as the petitioner is not entitled to wages for the period the dispute relating to termination is pending adjudication until the termination is set aside and award of back wages is made by the Labour Court, the petitioner is also not entitled to continue in occupation of the quarter which was allotted to him as an employee.
(Para 11)
( 1 ) THE petitioner was employed as a Recorder in Blooming and Billet Mill section of the Bhilai Steel Plant, owned by the Hindustan Steel Limited, a Government company. The petitioner as an employee was allotted a quarter by the management's order dated 3rd August 1966. The petitioner's services were terminated on 8th April 1967 with effect from 10th April 1967 on payment of one month's salary. The allotment of the quarter was subject to the petitioner's agreeing to pay rent at the rate fixed by the company and to abide by the rules and regulations governing the allotment of company's property. One of the rules relating to the allotment of quarters is that an employee who resigns or retires from service or is terminated or transferred, shall not be allowed to retain the quarter for a period exceeding one month from the date of the occurrence of the event and that an employee who retains the quarter beyond this period, except with the permission of the management, will be treated as an unauthorised occupant and eviction proceedings would be taken against him. The company filed an application on 30th June 1973 before the Estate Officer appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, claiming eviction of the petitioner. The company also claimed Rs. 3,788. 89 comprising of standard rent as damages at the rate of Rs. 46/- per month and electricity and other charges for the period from 10th April 1967 to 30th June 1973. Further damages at the rate of Rs. 46/-per month and electricity and other charges from 1st July 1973 til) the delivery of vacant possession were also claimed. The company's application was allowed by the estate Officer by order dated 24th October 1973. The petitioner then preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Durg, on 28th April 1975. The petitioner thereafter filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) IT may be mentioned at the outset that the petitioner challenged the order of termination of his services by an application under Section 31 of the Madhya pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court by order dated 31st may 1975 dismissed the petitioner's application. The order of the Labour Court was upheld in revision by the Industrial Court by order dated 11th November 1975. The petitioner then filed Misc. Petn. No. 487 of 1976 challenging the orders of the Industrial Court and the Labour Court. By order delivered by us on 15th December, 1979, we allowed that petition and remanded the case to the labour Court on the ground that the order of termination was passed by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority and that it is open to the labour Court, in the light of the decision in R. K. Nair v. G. M. , Bhilai Steel plant, 1977 MPLJ 497 : (1977 Lab 1c 1079) to see whether on the material produced in the domestic enquiry the charges of misconduct were proved against the petitioner and whether the punishment was justified on the charges.
( 3 ) THE Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is an Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. Section 2 (e), which defines the expression "public premises", reads as follows:
"2 (e) "public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes - (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of - (i) any company as denned in Section 3 of the Companies act, 1956, in which not less than 51%, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and (ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local authority)established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government. "
The expression "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by person of the
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
