ALLAHABAD PATRIKA P LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the employer challenging the order dated 29,5.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer under the Working Journalists and other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1955 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition as also the citation for recovery following the same dated 27.7.1999 at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The respondents working Journalist contested the proceeding and filed counter-affidavit. Petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit.

(2.) Heard Mr. V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. K. Parekh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application which has been allowed by the impugned order was under sub-sectton (1) of Section 17 of the said Act of 1955 which is in the nature of execution proceeding on the basis of some adjudication as regards the claim and it is an additional mode of recovery only and not a proceeding for deciding the payability of the claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner compared the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the said Act for the purpose of showing difference in the nature of the two proceedings. It is further stated that when the claim has been adjudicated already, the additional mode of recovery is provided under sub-section (1) before an officer of the State Government and when it requires adjudication, then provision has been made under sub-section (2) for reference of the question to any Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. With regard to the impugned order, it has also been contended that amounts have not been specified by the applicant and still then the authority has allowed the claim amount in its entirety without considering the payability of each head. It has been contended further that the payability has been strongly disputed by the writ petitioner before the authority who passed the impugned order and a dispute has been raised as regards relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the contesting respondent.