The Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue certificates for the recovery of compensation under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without prior determination of the amount due to the workers under Section 25FFF.

( 1. ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the certificates issued by the Labour Commissioner under Section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for recovery of certain amounts said to be due from the petitioners and for quashing the notice of demand served by the Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon, on the basis of those certificates.

( 2. ) THE petitioner is a public limited company which has been carrying on the business of manufacturing cotton textiles at Rajnandgacn. In 1959 the management decided to close down the working of the mills on the grounds of rise in labour and manufacturing costs, uneconomic work-big, absenteeism amongst workers, and financial difficulties. Accordingly the mills were closed from 6-9-1959. The validity of the closure was upheld by the State Industrial Court by its order in Industrial Application No. 67 of 1959 dated 4-9-1959. Thereafter on applications made by certain workers and at the instance of the Rashtriya Mill Maz-door Sangh, Rajnandgaon, the Labour Commissioner made calculations of the amount of compensation payable to the various employees under Section 25 FFF of the Act and issued certificates for the recovery of a total amount of Rs. 14,66,229/-from the mills as arrears of land revenue. Pursuant to these certificates, the Tehsildar of Rajnandgaon served a notice of demand under Section 134 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, calling upon the mills to pay the said amount within one day. In the recovery proceedings before the Tehsildar the petitioner questioned the validity of the certificates and the notice of demand issued to them. But the Tehsildar overruled the objection holding that he could not enquire into the validity of the certificates issued by the Labour Commissioner. The petitioner-mills then went up in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon, and prayed for an order staying the recovery proceedings. When their prayer was refused, they filed this application.

( 3. ) THE petitioner contends that the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue certificates under Section 33c when the amount of compensation payable to the workers of the mills had not been adjudicated upon by the competent authority and that without this adjudication there could be no question of recovery of any amount under Section 33c. In the return filed by the opponents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the matter of amount of compensation payable under Section 25fff being merely one of arithmetical calculation from the register of the employees maintained by the mills, the Labour Commissioner himself could determine the amount and order its recovery under Section 33c,

( 4. ) THE question raised here is, thus, whether the Labour Commissioner acted legally in issuing the certificates of recovery when the amount of compensation payable to the workers had, as contended by the petitioner-mills, not been determined before by any competent authority. The relevant statutory provisions are Sections 25fff and 33c of the Act. They are as follows: 25fff :--"1. Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25f, as if the workman had been retrenched:

Provided that where the undertaking is closed clown on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under Clause (b) ot Section 25f shall not exceed his average pay for three months. Explanation:-- An undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of financial difficulties (including financial losses) or accumulation of undisposed of stocks shall not be deemed to have been closed down on account of unavoidable circum stances beyond the control of