SUBHLAXMI MILLS LIMITED Vs. DUDHABHAI BECHARBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, Mr. T. R. Mishra, learned Advocate for the respondent waives service of the Rule. At the request of the learned Advocates, the Rule is finally heard to-day. The services of the respondent came to be terminated on 26-8-82 after a departmental inquiry on the ground of gross neglience in his duties resulting in breakage of Card No. 38. Against the said decision, the respondent filed T. Application No. 32 of 1983 before the Labour Court, Nadiad. The Labour Court Nadiad, by its order dated 29-7-1987 granted reinstatement of the respondent with 75% backwages. The petitioner as well the respondent filed separate appeals against the said order before the Industrial Court, Gujarat at Ahmedabad. On 3-11-1987, the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 30-3-1993 granted reinstatement of the respondent with 40% backwages. Again, both the parties filed separate appeals before the Industrial Court and on 29-10-1994 both the appeals were dismissed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the said judgment and order.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that by virtue of Sec. 5 of the Gujarat Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (Act No. 25 of 1986) which came into force on and from 1-1-1986, no liability of the owner of the sick textile undertaking in respect of any period prior to the appointed day i.e. 1-1-1986 shall be enforceable against the State Government or the Gujarat State Textile Corporation and, therefore, the Courts below ought not to have decided the application of the respondent.

(3.) Now, this being a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, it is open to raise any new contention for the first time. As can be seen from the facts, neither before the Labour Court nor before the Appellate Court, even after remand, this contention was raised by the petitioner and, admittedly, the same is now raised for the first time before this Court. All questions of law need not necessarily be entertained in a petition under Art. 227, if they were not raised earlier when opportunity for raising the same was available. However, since this issue is being raised often in similar matters, it is necessary to set the point at naught. Section 5 of the said Act deals with the liability of the owner and if reads as under :