MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing two orders, to wit, one made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur, on 19 August 1960 directing the reinstatement in service of the opponent Govindas, and other of the industrial court upholding in revision the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

(2.) THE opponent Govindas filed an application under Section 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner complaining that he was in continuous service of the petitioner-committee from 11 December 1956 to 30 June 1958 on which date his services were illegally terminated. The reply of the municipal committee was that the respondent was first employed temporarily as a chowkidar in the Ganj area for a period of six months from 10 December 1956 to 12 June 1957; that on 12 June 1957 a notice terminating the respondent's service with effect from 30 June 1957 was served on him; that in the meantime the respondent made a representation and the municipal committee out of sheer compassion appointed him temporarily as octroi peon for a period of one year from 1 July 1957 to 30 June 1958; and that the opponent's services were terminated validly.

(3.) THE Assistant Labour Commissioner held that the opponent's services were continuous and, therefore, he was entitled to notice and compensation under Section 26 (1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922; that the rules framed under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act governing the relations between a municipal committee and its employees were " standing orders,"; and that the opponent's services were terminated in contravention of these standing orders. Accordingly, the Assistant Labour Commissioner made an order directing the reinstatement of the opponent and payment of back-wages to him. Thereafter the municipal committee preferred a revision petition in the industrial court which was dismissed. Before the industrial court the municipal committee raised the contention that as at the time of the termination of his services the respondent was serving in octroi department, he could not be regarded as in service in any " industry " as defined in the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947; and that, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1947 were not applicable and the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the municipal committee terminating the opponent's services. The learned president of the industrial court refused to entertain this objection taking the view that the question whether the octroi department of the municipal committee was an " industry " was a question of fact and as it had not been raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner it could not be considered for the first time in the revision petition.