( 1. ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing six certificates issued by the opponent No. 4, the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Labour Department, under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for recovery of certain amounts said to be payable as compensation to six workers of the petitioner-Mills who were laid off under the provisions of the Act, and for quashing the notices of demand served by the Naib Tehsildar, Burhanpur, on the basis of those certificates.

( 2. ) THE material facts are that in 1958 six workers of the petitioner-Mills, who had been laid off, applied to the Government for payment of layoff compensation for the period from July to October 1957 under Sections 25-C and 33-C of the Act. The applications were made under Rule 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. On receipt of the applications, the Labour Commissioner acting under the said rule directed the Labour Officer, Burhanpur, to enquire into the allegations and merits, of the applications and to make a report to him. On the basis of these reports, the Government found the amount payable to each worker as lay-off compensation and accordingly issued certificates under Section 33-C of the Act for recovery of the amount.

( 3. ) SHRI V. S. Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, contended that under Section 33-C the Government had no jurisdiction to issue certificates when there was no adjudication by the competent authority as to the amount of lay-off compensation under Chapter V-A of the Act; that without such an adjudication there could be no question of recovery of any amount under Section 33-C; and that Rule 62 framed by the Government in so far as it permitted the Government to determine the money due to a workman from an employer under the provisions of Chapter V-A on an enquiry by the Labour Commissioner or the Labour Officer was ultra vires the Act. It was further submitted that the amount of compensation payable as lay-off compensation to the workers could be determined only by the Labour Court as defined in Section 7 of the Act.

( 4. ) IN our judgment, this petition must be granted. The question that arises for determination in this application is whether Government was the competent authority to determine the amount of layoff compensation payable to the workers, and if it was not, whether it acted legally in issuing the certificates for the recovery of the amount. The question turns on the construction of Section 33-C. This provision-was considered very recently in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd. Rajnandgaon v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M. P. No. 226 of 1959 : (AIR 1960 Madh-Pra 319) and it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that :

"section 33c (1), therefore, deals with the recovery of an amount which has already been ascertained and not with the ascertainment of any amount payable to the employee. The amount due to a workman from, an employer under a settlement or an award may be an ascertained amount. But the same cannot be said of an amount due to him under the provisions of Chapter VA. This has to be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of Chapter VA before the recovery of it can be ordered under Section 33c (1 ). Section 33c (1) no doubt says that the appropriate Government, if satisfied that any money is due, shall issue a certificate for the recovery of that amount. But this satisfaction of the appropriate Government is not for the purpose of the ascertainment of the amount. It is with regard to the question whether any ascertained amount payable to the worker has or has not been paid to him, or whether any balance is still due to him. "

This view was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. v. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 in which Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, analogous to Section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act,