RAMACHANDRA KAMATH Vs. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the decision reported in Lord Krishna Bank v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 others ILR 1991 (1) Ker. 78 is under challenge in this writ appeal.

(2.) When an application is received by the State Government or its delegate under S.4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") read along with R.4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1974 (for short "the Rules") from an employee whose employer falls under the category of employers mentioned in S.2 (a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I. D. Act"), to which conciliation officer appointed under the I. D. Act, the application should be sent to for enquiry and report is the main question to be decided in this appeal. To put it differently the question to be considered in the case is whether an application received under R.4 of the Rules should be sent to the conciliation officer appointed by the Central or State Government depending upon the status of die employer The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the conciliation officer appointed by the Central Government is the officer to whom the application has to be forwarded if the employer is one coming under S.2(a)(i) of the I. D. Act.

(3.) Brief facts necessary to decide the issue are thus: The appellant who is alleged to be an employee of the first respondent Lord Krishna Bank Limited was suspended pending enquiry as per Ext. P-1 memo issued by the Bank. Since subsistence allowance was not paid, the appellant filed Ext. P-2 application under S.4 of the Act claiming; the same for the period from 1st April 1989 to 31st May, 1989 before the second respondent Deputy Labour Commissioner to whom Government has delegated its power under S.4 of the Act as per notification issued under S.6 of the Act. On receipt of the application, the second respondent sent the application for enquiry and report to the third respondent Deputy Labour Officer appointed by the Government of Kerala, under the I. D. Act. Third respondent accordingly conducted the enquiry and sent his report to the second respondent. Accepting the report the second respondent passed Ext. P-5 order directing the Bank to pay subsistence allowance as per the said order. Appellant also claimed subsistence allowance for the period from 1st June, 1989 to 31st August, 1989. That too was granted by Ext. P-6 order. Aggrieved by the said orders, the first respondent - Bank challenged Exts. P-5 and P-6 orders in the O. P. contending inter alia that the Act is not applicable to the Bank and its employees. The jurisdiction of authority of the third respondent to conduct the enquiry on the claim for subsistence allowance was also challenged by the Bank. It was also contended that no opportunity was granted to the Bank to adduce evidence. According to the Bank the conciliation officer appointed under the I. D. Act by the Central Government alone has jurisdiction to conduct enquiry in a claim against the employer Bank under the Act which comes under S.2(a)(i) of the I. D. Act. It was accepting the aforesaid contention of the Bank that the learned Single Judge had set aside Exts. P-5 and P-6 orders and directed the second respondent to send the claim petition to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for enquiry and report as per the impugned judgment.