MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AKOLA Vs. SECOND LABOUR COURT NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Akola, against the order passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur, in Industrial Disputes Cases Nos. 273 to 442 of 1968, dated 23rd August, 1969 as also the order, dated 9th September, 1969. In all 170 employees of the Municipal Council, Akola filed an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred to hereinafter as the Act, claiming minimum wages from the petitioner-Municipal Council as per the Government notification, dated 14th August, 1965 which was made applicable to the employees of the local authorities. Prior to the filing of the present applications the employees has also filed an application before the Minimum Wages Authority. However, because of the period of limitation prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act, they restricted their claim to the period which was within limitation and filed a pursis in the following terms : "The applicants to not press for condonation of delay. Claim for 6 months arrears be determined as they are entitled under law." In view of this pursis, the Minimum Wages Authority passed an order, dated 9-12-1966 in following terms : "The present application is not pressed by the applicants. The application is dismissed. The file be fixed is for W.S. for six months arrears prior to the date of application." It seems thereafter the matter was settled between the parties so far as the claim within limitation was concerned. In the present proceedings, apart from the contentions raised on behalf of the Municipal Council on merits of the claim a preliminary objection was raised that the present applications are not maintainable because the employees had already filed an application under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and the said order operates as res judicata.

(2.) From the record it seems that the Second Labour Court fixed the case for hearing on 27-6-1969 for hearing on preliminary point. The arguments were heard only on the preliminary point and the Court informed the parties that the order on the preliminary point would be passed at Nagpur on 5-7-69. However, by an order dated 23rd August, 1969, the Labour Court not only decided the preliminary point, but decided the whole matter on merits.

(3.) It is not disputed by Shri Kukdey, the learned counsel for the employees, before us that the case was fixed for hearing on 28-6-1969 for hearing the arguments of the parties on the preliminary point only. On that date the arguments were heard on the preliminary point and the learned Judge informed the parties that the order on the preliminary point would be passed at Nagpur. From this it is clear that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner-Municipal Council to put forward their case, so far as the merits of the claim are concerned the matter was decided by the Labour Court. Therefore, so far as the decision of the Labour Court on merits of the claim is concerned it is obviously illegal and is liable to be quashed.