M/S. OMRAO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, U. P., KANPUR REGION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By its Award dated Oct., 10, 1979 in a dispute between the petitioner M/s. Omrao Industrial Corporation Private Limited and its workmen, Industrial Tribunal (III) U. P. at Kanpur directed that all the workmen who had received lay off compensation for the months of Nov. and Dec. 1976 shall be paid lay off compensation from Jan. 1, 1977 to Dec. 10, 1977 and from Dec. 12, 1977 onwards for all working days in every month except for such weekly holidays as may have intervened. The employer, it appears did not implement the Award so that the workmen made an application dated March 22, 1980 to the Secretary to Government, U. P. in Labour (A) Department in the prescribed form under Sec. 6-H(l) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules framed thereunder. In this application it was prayed that recovery be ordered from the petitioner employer of the amount mentioned against the name of each of the workmen contained in an annexure to that application. The recovery was prayed for to be made under the provisions of Sec. 6-H(l) of the Act.

(2.) The Additional Labour Commissioner U. P. of the Kanpur Region, as delegate of the State Government addressed a communication dated April 22, 1980 to the employers through Sri Anil Kumar Sharma intimating him that the employers should appear either themselves or through an authorised representative, along with the relevant records on May 19,1980 at 11 A.M for verification of the claim made by the workmen failing which the entire amount claimed in the application would be treated to be due from the employers and directed to be recovered by (from?) Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, who was one of the Directors of the petitioner. A written objection dated July 25, 1980 was then sent to the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur (Sri K. P. Srivastava), under whose signatures the earlier communication dated April 22, 1980 had been sent to the petitioner. In this objection it was, inter alia pleaded that the claim which was made by the workmen was not in accordance with the Award and that the amount had been calculated for a continuous period without deducting the weekly holidays so that it could not be accepted to be payable. It was also pointed out that the names of the workmen mentioned in the annexure were not accepted to be correct and that the registers of the employers were with the Income Tax Department and if time was granted to them they will be in a position to prove that the names and the amounts mentioned in the annexure were not correct. The objection was sent by the petitioner under the signatures of one Sri O. P. Gaur who had also prayed, in a separate application, that it be taken on record and heard and decided in the presence of the representatives of the parties. On Aug. 28, 1980 another communication was addressed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, U. P. Kanpur to Sri Anil Kumar Sharma by which he was informed that the matter will be heard and decided by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur at 11 A.M. on Sept. 8, 1980 and that he should, if he so liked present himself along with the necessary papers before him that day failing which the claim made by the workmen would be treated to be correct and ex parte order would be passed. This communication was admittedly received by Sri Sharma who made a request through his letter dated Sept. 6, 1980 for fixing a date after 25th Sept., 1980 in the matter for he was to be out of Kanpur on the date fixed, namely Sept. 8, 1980. It was also mentioned in this letter by Sri Sharma that he was only one of the Directors of the petitioner and that the liability lay against the Company and not against him. This letter was addressed by Sri Sharma for M/s. Umrao Industrial Corporation (P) Limited, the petitioner.

(3.) On Oct. 10, 1980, an ex parte order was passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner U. P. Kanpur directing recovery of the amount claimed by the workmen as arrears of land revenue and for payment thereof to the persons mentioned in the annexure. Following this order the properties of the petitioner were placed under attachment Then the petitioner approached this Court in the present writ petition.