GAYAPRASAD Vs. BURHANPUR TAPTI MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing a decision of the labour court, Indore, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act; for reinstatement on the ground that it was incompetent and the petitioner should have filed an application under Section 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, be fore the appropriate authority. This Act was repealed by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, and will hereinafter be referred to as the repealed Act. The decision of the labour court was affirmed in revision by the Industrial court. A writ is also sought for quashing the decision of the industrial court.

(2.) THE petitioner was in the employment of the respondent 1, the Burhanpur Tapti Mills, Ltd. , Burhanpur. He was dismissed from service on 4 November 1960 while the repealed Act was In force. The new Act came into force from 31 December 1960. After the coming into force of the Act, the petitioner approached his employer with a request for reinstatement as required by proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act before filing the application which was rejected by the labour court. Both the labour court and the industrial court took the view that as the applicant was dismissed on 4 November 1960 before the coming Into force of the new Act he bad a right of applying under Section 16 of the repealed Act for an order of reinstatement and that right was preserved by proviso (b) to Section 112 of the new Act, and that consequently the petitioner could not be granted any relief under Section 31 of the Act.

(3.) IN our judgment, the view taken by the labour court and the industrial court Is altogether erroneous. It is quite true that the applicant was dismissed on 4 November 1960 and had under Section 16 of the repealed Act a right of making an application to the Labour Commissioner for reinstatement and payment of compensation for loss of wages. But this right was available to him only until the coming into force of the new Act. The petitioner, however, made no application under Section 16 of the repealed Act befor the new Act came into force. It was after the Act of 1960 came into force that he made two applications, one under Section 16 of the repealed Act and another under Section 31 of the new Act, for reinstatement and other relief. Now, proviso (b) to Section 112 of the new Act on which the labour court and the Industrial court based their decision runs as follows: Provided that