A.K. LOGANATHAN Vs. R. BEEMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who had lost in the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by him for a declaration that the common order in C.P. Nos. 393 of 1967, 98 of 1968 and 100 of 1968 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore is a nullity and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the same. According to the plaintiff, he is a partner in "Reliable Transports" which is a firm, acting as managing agents for Messrs. Safe Service Limited, a public limited company having its registered office at Guagai, Salem and operating stage carriage transport service. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, worked as an accountant on a fixed remuneration under M/s. Safe Service Limited for a period of less than six months. While so, he filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the plaintiff describing him as the managing partner of M/s. Safe Service Limited in C.P. No. 205 of 1967 claiming computation of salary and compensation for delayed payment of salary in a sum of Rs. 795. On 22nd May 1967, the Labour Court Coimbatore passed an order ex parte, in favour of the defendant in a sum of Rs. 410. For the later periods viz., from 1st January, 1965 to 31st July, 1967 at the rate of Rs. 150 per month, from 1st August, 1967 to 31st October, 1967 at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and from 1st November, 1967 to 30th November, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 100 per month, the defendant filed three applications in C.P. Nos. 393 of 1967, 98 of 1968 and 100 of 1968 claiming wages. By its order dated 12th July 1968, the Labour Court, Coimbatore awarded a sum of Rs. 3,750. In C.P. No. 205 of 1967, since the amount remained unpaid, the defendant took steps for recovering the amount and realised the same. Inasmuch as the amounts due under the three applications in C.P. Nos. 393 of 1967, 98 of 1968 and 100 of 1968 had remained unpaid and the Government ordered recovery proceedings to be taken against the plaintiff and the revenue authorities were also taking steps to collect the amount from the plaintiff, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the reliefs set out earlier on the ground that the defendant is not entitled to recover the said amount from the plaintiff as he was employed by M/s. Safe Service Limited and as the award passed by the Labour Court is a nullity and unenforceable viz., as against a person who was not an employer of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the address given by the defendant in the computation petition was wrong and that the plaintiff was not the managing partner.

(2.) IN his written statement, the defendant contended that he was employed as a clerk by the plaintiff and that he worked only under him for more than a year. Suppression of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to the effect that the defendant was employed under the plaintiff for more than six months was attributed by the defendant to the plaintiff. According to him, therefore, he was entitled, to recover this amount from the plaintiff and from the assets of M/s. Safe Service Limited and the award passed by the Labour Court is not a nullity. It was also pointed out by the defendant that no plea was raised by the plaintiff before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that he is not the managing partner and that such a plea was sought to be raised for the first time with a view to escape his liability. The computation made by the Labour Court, according to the defendant, for the period from 1st January, 1965 to 31st January 1967 etc., was, quite correct. A further plea relating to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to question the correctness of the award by the Labour Court in a suit was also raised.

(3.) IN this second appeal, the only contention that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Labour Court has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and therefore, its order is a nullity and should be set aside by the civil Court. He would further elaborate it by stating that it was the duty of the Labour Court to ascertain whether a particular person who was impleaded as a party to proceedings before it was properly described or not. Therefore, he contends that the defendant, who was an employee of M/s. Safe Service Limited, could not enforce an award passed against the plaintiff shown as the managing partner of M/s. Safe Service Limited. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the defendant respondent contends that there is no error whatever of judicial procedure, but that the claim proceedings which arose before the Labour Court were only to give effect to the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation hold in that the order terminating the services of the defendant was not correct. He relies on the description given therein as "A.K. Loganathan, Managing Partner, Safe Service Limited, Salem -8" and contends that it is the very same person who was a party to the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that was sought to be proceeded in the further proceedings for giving effect to that order by resorting to Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A further submission was also made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in the process of considering an application under Section 33(c)(2), it is open to the employer to contend that he was not the employer. Indeed, he would point out that in the instant case such plea was raised, but in spite of that the plaintiff was made liable and if at all the plaintiff was aggrieved by any such order, he should have taken appropriate steps to get rid of that adjudication and not resort to a suit before a civil Court.