SASAMUSA SUGAR WORKSLTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is a limited concern Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd. It has got a rule issued from this Court against the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or certiorari, or, in the alternative, direction should not be issued forbearing them from giving effect to the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner on 21-2-1953 and 29-4-1953, and restraining them from taking any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1950 and also for quashing two orders one passed by the Government under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act and communicated to the Sub-divisional Officer, Gopalganj, on 20-2-1954, and the other passed by the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, whereby he has started, a certificate case No. 331 of 1953-54 for the recovery of Rs. 23,790/1/3 against the Directors of Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd.

(2.) THE dispute giving rise to the present application is in substance the outcome of some difference between the parties over the interpretation of an award dated 26-9-1950, given under -the Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947) by the Industrial Tribunal of which the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Sinha (as he then was) was the sole member.

(3.) ON these allegations the present application has been now filed in this Court by the petitioner for the issue of writs and directions as stated above. It may be noted here that the present application was sworn on 18-2-1954, and as the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceeding taken against it under the Public Demands Recovery Act at any time before 4-3-1954, when notice thereof under Section 7 was served on it, no reference of the proceeding, it is said, could be made in the original application, and, therefore, on the service of the notice under the Public Demands Recovery Act, supplementary affidavits were filed in the case by the petitioner praying therein to quash the order passed by the Certificate Officer whereby he has started a case under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioner and also to make the Certificate Officer ft party therein.