BAIJ NATH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 10 claims to be an employee in the unit of petitioner. Claiming himself to be a workman, he filed an application before the Labour Court in terms of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming for computation of his wages payable under an employment agreement with petitioner. It may be noted that this agreement was neither arrived at in course of any conciliation proceedings nor is a settlement nor has it been notified or given to any authority. It is an alleged private agreement between the parties. Before the Labour Court, notices were issued to the petitioner who appeared and challenged the maintainability of such an application. While doing so, it specifically urged that the agreement was forged, invalid and did not bind the petitioner in any manner. It disputed the claims of respondent No. 10. The Labour Court noticed the said challenges and then held that application in terms of Section 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable and that respondent No. 10 had chosen a wrong forum. This was so ordered on 7.11.2007 (Annexure -4). It may also be noted that petitioner 'sclaim related to five years ' wages that is from 1.4.1981 to 20.4.1984 with bonus, leave, earned leave and overtime and the same had been claimed in 1992 before the Labour Court in Miscellaneous Case No. 28 of 1992.

(2.) The claim, thus, having been rejected, respondent No. 10 then filed an application before the Labour Commissioner, Bihar on 29.11.2007 (Annexure -J to the supplementary counter affidavit). In that application, all that respondent No. 10 said was that he was annexing the order of the Labour Court passed in the said Miscellaneous Case No. 28 of 1992 and requested the Labour Commissioner to get the money recovered as per the order. Interestingly, from the office of the Labour Commissioner, the said application of respondent No. 10 was forwarded to Joint Labour Commissioner by letter dated 2.1.2008 clearly stating that the judgment of the Labour Court needs implementation and steps to implement the same should be taken up immediately (Annexure -K to the supplementary counter affidavit) which is also Annexure -6 to the writ application. On 24.1.2008, respondent No. 7 files a calculation chart before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna claiming Rs. 71,167/ - and interest thereon with cost totaling to over Rs. 4 lacs. It now appears from Annexure -H to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 7 that the Labour Superintendent, Patna who was then dealing with the matter acting in pursuance to the letter from the Labour Commissioner 'soffice dated 2.1.2008, issued notices to the petitioner and then without any further enquiry merely noted that the claim of respondent No. 10 is to be recovered in terms of Section 33C(1) of the Act and forwarded alongwith requisition for certificate for an amount of Rs. 71,167/ - vide his letter dated 13.2.2008 and on the same day, on basis of requisition of the same day, certificate for the said amount was issued against the petitioner and, thereafter, coercive steps were taken to realize the amount from the petitioner which has brought the petitioner to this Court. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) THE first thing that is apparent is that when respondent No. 10 made an application in terms of Section 33C(2) of the Act, the application was neither adjudicated upon nor any finding given therein. The order, as noted above, notes that the petitioner challenges the very authenticity of the agreement which was the basis of the claim of the workman (respondent No. 10). It holds that the application was not maintainable and respondent No. 10 had chosen a wrong forum. Thus, in absence of any finding, in absence of any adjudication, there was nothing to be executed. Notwithstanding this, the workman (respondent No. 10) virtually filed an execution application before the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, Patna who then directed the Labour Superintendent to proceed with the matter for realization of the workman 'smoney. At the very outset, I may state that such a procedure is unknown to law. There was no direction or finding executable as given by the Labour Court and the moment from the office of the Labour Commissioner directions were issued, the subordinates were no option but to implement the same as if they were executing an order of the Labour Court. In the last communication when requisitions were made and certificate issued, it appears that these were taken to be the proceedings in terms of Section 33C (1) of the Act.