PRADIP LAMP WORKS Vs. CERTIFICATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Certificate Officer other than the Collector of the district is competent to recover the money found due to the workman from the employer in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, 'the Act'). The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

(2.) At the instance of Respondent No. 3, Govind Lal Das, the State Government made reference of the dispute as to whether he (Govind Lal Das) comes under the category of "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act and if, so, whether termination of the services from May 7, 1985 by the management was proper and justified and, in the event the termination is found to be improper and unjustified, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and/or other relief. The Labour court, Patna by its award dated November 29, 1988 held that Respondent No. 3 was workman within the meaning of the Act. His termination was legal and unjustified and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The Petitioner challenged the award by way of a writ petition which was dismissed. Respondent No. 3 in the meantime, filed two applications, bearing Misc. Case No. 18 of 1989 and Misc. Case No. 19 of 1989, for computation of salary for different periods under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court, Patna by its orders dated April 2 and April 3, 1991 held that he was entitled to recover arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 82,500/- and Rs. 23,100/- i.e. Rs. 1,05,600/- in all. The Additional Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar by his letter dated March 22, 1993 sent requisition to the Collector, Patna for recovery of the aforesaid sum. The Collector, Patna appears to have sent the aforesaid requisition to the Certificate Officer, Patna City on the basis of which Certificate Case No. 2 of 1993-94 was registered on April 26, 1993. The Certificate Officer issued notice of the proceeding to the Petitioners under Section 7 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act. It appears from the order-sheet of the proceeding that after the warrant of arrest was issued on their failure to either pay the amount or file any objection, they filed an application on September 7, 1993 making an offer to pay the dues in instalments. Prior to this, they had already filed this instant writ petition on July 15, 1993. The Certificate Officer allowed the prayer directing the Petitioners to deposit sum of Rs. 5,000/- every month. However, after making some deposits the Petitioner did not pay the rest.

(3.) Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that any money found due to a workman from an employer, amongst other, under an award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal can be recovered by the Collector of the district alone. The Certificate Officer has no jurisdiction or competence to make recovery and that being so the entire proceeding before the Certificate Officer, Patna City in Certificate Case No. 2/93-94 is without jurisdiction.