P V SREEDHARAN NAIR Vs. SPL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed to quash the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Exts. P10 to P13 The petitioner was the Managing partner of a Partnership which was operating a bus bearing Registration No. KLN 708. Admittedly, respondents 4 and 5 are workers employed by the partnership. That partnership was dissolved by a decree passed in a suit filed by one of the partners, viz. the brother of the petitioner as O. S. No. 192 of 1979 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thalassery. Preliminary and final decree have been passed. In the final decree passed, there is a provision for payment of arrears of salaries to the employees in connection with the management of the bus upto the date of court auction. Before the partnership was dissolved, the petitioner purchased the bus in court auction on 24-10-1988 for an amount of Rs. 80,000/-. The purchase consideration was deposited in court and, thereafter, the petitioner was operating the bus. service. When the dissolution suit was pending, i. e. from 1-4-1984 to 31-10-1988, the receiver appointed by the court was operating the bus service. The bus was put in possession of the petitioner on 1-11-1988 and, thereafter, the petitioner was running the service and operating the bus. It was found that the operation of bus service was not profitable and, therefore, the petitioner retrenched the workmen on 3-12-1990 including respondents 3, 4 and 5. A dispute arose regarding payment of the amount due to the workmen which ended in a settlement, i.e. Ext. P4. On 26-3-1991 the Conciliation Officer issued a notice convening a conciliation conference of the parties to the dispute relating to Bus KLN 708 and denial of employment to three workers. The conference was proposed at 3 P. M. on 2-4-1991 in the office of the District Labour Officer, Cannanore. The 4th respondent has produced the notice as Ext. R4(a). A meeting was held on 2-4-1991. On that day, it is stated that the parties have agreed to have a bipartite discussion and to adjourn the conciliation conference. The parties discussed the matter on 12-4-1991 in the presence of Sri. Achuthan Nair, Advocate of the petitioner. Parties arrived at a tentative settlement on that day. That has been produced by the 4th respondent and marked as Ext. R4(b). That shows the petitioner is a signatory to that agreement. By that agreement the amount due to respondents 4 and 5 has been quantified at Rs. 15,898/- and Rs. 9515/- respectively. By Clause.5 of that agreement it was agreed that the said agreement was only a provisional agreement and further agreement will be entered into in the presence of the District Labour Officer on 17-4-1991. Accordingly a conciliation settlement was arrived at which is evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 20-5-1991. Serial Nos. 2 and 5 in Ext, P4 are respondents 4 and 5. The amount due to them have been quantified and mentioned. In Ext. P4 it is stated that an amount of Rs. 2,002/- should be deducted from the amount due to the 4th respondent and an amount of Rs. 1640/- to be deducted from the amount due to the 5th respondent. Without deduction, the amount comes to Rs. 25,413/- and after deduction the amount comes to Rs. 21,771/-.

(2.) The amount is due under the settlement and under S.33C(1) that can be recovered by way of revenue recovery proceedings. Under S.33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, can make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. The settlement Itself is not in challenge before me. The contention of the petitioner is that only the Government can recover the amount and the District Labour Officer has no jurisdiction. This contention is not tenable as the power of delegation has been given under S.39 and notification authorising the District Labour Officer also has been issued. S.39 authorises the appropriate Government, by notification in the official gazette to direct that any powers exercisable by it under the Industrial Disputes Act or Rules made thereunder can be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to it as may be specified in the notification. Notification No. 48174/L2/61-5 HLD dated 4th July, 1961 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 18th July 1961 directed that the powers exercisable by the Government of Kerala under sub-section (1) of S.33C of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be exercisable also by the Labour Commissioner, Deputy Labour Commissioners and the District Labour Officer. In this case the certificate has been issued by the District Labour Officer. Hence, the contention that the District Labour Officer cannot Issue the certificate but only the Government can do so cannot be countenanced.

(3.) Petitioner also contended that there must be an enquiry regarding the amount due as the petitioner has challenged the existence of the agreement itself. Jurisdiction under S.33C(1) is to issue the certificate and that jurisdiction cannot be taken away by conjuring up a dispute regarding the settlement. Conciliation settlement has been signed by the petitioner and before that there is a provisional settlement as well. Amount due from the petitioner has been quantified and, therefore, a dispute at the belated stage to oust the jurisdiction of the competent authority, the Government, or the delegated authority cannot be countenanced. The Government's jurisdiction under S.33C(1) cannot be ousted by a mere plea at a belated stage that the settlement arrived at is not genuine or binding. There is also a contention that the conciliation agreement has not been signed by the Conciliation Officer. From the agreement it is seen that the Conciliation Officer has signed the agreement and there was no contention that agreement has not been countersigned by the Conciliation Officer, in Exts. P7, P8 & P15 objection of. the petitioner. In any case there was provisional agreement preceding the conciliation settlement in which the petitioner is a signatory. Therefore, he cannot contend that the amount is not properly quantified or that the amount is not actually due. It is also contended that the amount now in dispute is deposited in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry in O. S. No. 192/1979 and that can be attached and recovered. Respondents 4 and 5 are not parties fa the suit. Agreement can be enforced under S.33C(1) and that can be done by way of certificate issued and that is what has been done in this case. Exts. P10 to P13 are, therefore, not vitiated. If the petitioner makes the payment, it is for him to recover the amount from the Subordinate Judge's Court, in O. S. No. 192 of 1979.