IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Bhartiya Drugs and Chemicals Shramik Karmchari Parishad – Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 5916 of 2014, W.P. No. 8261 of 2016, W.P. No. 3 of 2017
Decided On : 21-08-2018
Labour Commissioner - Recovery of Dues - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Chapter V-A and V-B) - Summary of Acts and Sections: ID Act, 1947 (Chapter V-A and V-B) - The court discussed the powers conferred under Section 33-C(1) and (2) of the ID Act, emphasizing that the authority cannot recall its own order once passed, unless set aside by a higher authority. The court also highlighted the wider scope of Section 33-C(2) compared to Section 33-C(1) and the nature of the proceedings as an execution proceeding. The judgment referenced legal principles established in previous cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trade union, sought recovery of dues for the workmen of a company that went into liquidation. The Labour Commissioner issued a Recovery of Dues Certificate (RRC) under Section 33-C(1) of the ID Act. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, and the petitioner challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Commissioner had no power to recall its own order once passed, and the dispute should not have been referred to the Labour Court. It condemned the conduct of the Labour Commissioner and directed the execution of the RRC for recovery of dues.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Commissioner had the authority to recall its own order and refer the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Commissioner cannot recall its own order once passed under Section 33-C(1) of the ID Act. It emphasized the nature of the proceedings as an execution proceeding and the wider scope of Section 33-C(2) compared to Section 33-C(1).
Final Decision: The court set aside the order referring the dispute to the Labour Court and directed the Labour Commissioner to execute the RRC for recovery of dues within three months.
By this common order, all the aforesaid three writ petitions are disposed of as the controversy involved in the matter is undistinguishable. For the sake of convenience, facts narrated in W.P. No.5916/2014 are taken into consideration.
2. The petitioner, who is a trade union espousing the couse of the workmen has approached this Court seeking direction/writ for execution of the RRC dated 11.2.2014 issued by Dy. Labour Commissioner, Indore for recovery of Rs.9,11,71,222.84 for payment of Basic, Dearness Allowance, Gratuity, Provident Fund, dues of bonus, Earned Leave, etc. The members of the petitioner Union are the employees/workmen of Jayant Vitamins Limited, (herein after referred as the Company) which went into liquidation before the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).
3. The company viz. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. had stopped production activities since 9.4.1997. The management of the company sought permission of closure u/s. 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred as the ID Act) by submitting an application on 26.7.1997 before the competent authority of the State Government. The closure of the company was sought from the back date i.e. 9.4.1997. By order dated 29.8.1997, the State Government declined the permission of closure from the back date 9.4.1997. Since the State Government has refused the closure u/s. 25-O, therefore, company cannot be treated as closed, hence its employees would be entitled for all the benefits available under Chapter V-A and V-B of the ID Act. Thereafter, the petitioner and other trade unions approached Labour Commissioner, Indore by way of application u/s. 33-C(1) of the Act for recovery of wages payable from April, 1997 onwards from the company Jayant Vitamins Ltd.
4. The total land belonging to the said company is more than 350 Hect. and out of which, 25 Hect. land was put to auction. By way of auction of 25 Hect. of the land, sum of Rs.14,15,96,000/-was received by the State Government. A settlement was arrived at between a group of labourers and the company on 11.3.2012 for disbursement of Rs.15,11,00,000/-. In compliance of the aforesaid settlement, claim of 36 workmen had been settled and for the remaining 211 workmen, 10% claim were paid and for remaining 90% of the amount, post-dated cheques were issued, which stood dishonoured. By order dated 6.8.2013, W.P. No.7250/2013 was disposed of with a direction to Tehsildar to proceed further so that other claims of the workmen can also be settled for which, auction of the property was cancelled. The issue in respect of payment of wages came before this Court in W.A. No.882/2013 (Jayant Vitamins Ltd. V/s. State of M.P.) preferred by the company which was disposed of by order dated 10.10.2013 with an observation that the labourers are not getting their legitimate dues as per the RRC and are filing applications one after the other in order to get the fruits of the order dated 9.1.2013. It was further observed that the company is bound to make payment of legitimate dues of the labourers and also bound to comply with the order passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner.
5. The Labour Commissioner, Indore issued certificate u/s. 33-C(1) of the ID Act in respect of all trade unions and for the group of 108 workers who separated from the Union and formed separate group. The company entered into compromise with 479 workers, which was opposed by 108 workers and finally, the Additional Labour Commissioner wrote two letters dated 19.1.1998 and 4.7.2000 to Tehsildar, Ratlam for recovery of the wages. In pursuant to the aforesaid letters, payment of wages of 108 labourers for the period of 13 months i.e. April, 1997 to April, 1998 was made and thereafter payment for the period from August to November, 1998 was also made.
6. Thereafter, another Union viz. Jayant Vitamin Shramik Sangh constituted on 4.9.1996 filed anoth
Central Bank of India Ltd. and others vs. Rajagopalan (PS) and others
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories V/s. Dy. Labour Commissioner
Lily Thomas And Others Versus Union Of India And Others
Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.