MUNICIPAL BOARD MERTA Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER RAJ JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the order of 31st January, 1973 passed by respondent No, 1, Labour Commissioner Rajasthan Ex. P/19 by which he has ordered that a certificate for the amount claimed by respondent Nos. 6 to 31 (the employees of the petitioner Board) be issued in favour of the Collector, Nagaur for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner had a power house which generated electricity and supplied it to the town of Merta. Respondents Nos. 6 to 31 were the employees of the petitioner. THE power house was taken over by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent No. 2 and respondents Nos. 6 to 31 were thereafter transferred to respondent No. 2. On 6-4 71 an application was moved by respondent Nos. 6 to 31 under sec. 33g (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be called "the Act") to the Board respondent No. 1 claiming that they were entitled to retrenchment compensation from the petitioner and that order may be passed in that connection. A statement showing the compensation due to each of the respondents was attached along with the petition which showed a total of Rs. 28,353/- as retrenchment compensation. On a notice having been issued by respondent No. 1 the petitioner Board did not file any reply though a reply was filed by respondent No. 2 Electricity Board in which it was pleaded that if the employees are entitled to any compensation the same could only be recovered from the Municipal Board and not from the respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 1 considered this matter by its order dated 18-12-71 and took the view that the respondents Nos. 6 to 31 could raise this dispute either as an industrial dispute or under sec. 33c (2) of the Act and that their application for payment of retrenchment benefit was not maintainable as he had no jurisdiction to do so. It seems however that the next day it was brought to his notice that some orders had been passed in the case of power house. Barmer and he therefore decided to review the matter in the light of that. On 16 9-72 the petitioner Board appeared before respondent No. 4 and took the stand that it had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of the decision of 1969 LLJ Vol. II, 728 U. P. Electric Supply Go. Ltd. vs. Shukla & sons. THEreafter the matter was adjourned to 13-10-72 and thereafter to 24-10 72. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter had to be adjourned to 24-11-72. On that day also no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and a telegram was sent for adjournment of the case and the respondent No. 1 therefore adjourned the matter. THE next date fixed was 31-1-73 and on that day also nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner but the Chairman, Municipal Board sent a telegram for adjournment of the case without specifying the reason for adjournment. As respondent No. 1 did not see any justification to adjourn this request was refused and the respondent No. 1 after considering the merits of the case and considering that no liability arose to pay retrenchment benefit to the former employees of the Municipal Board who had been transferred to the new employer respondent No. 2 it held that retrenchment benefit was to be paid to respondents Nos. 6 to 31 by the petitioner. It therefore directed that a certificate for recovery of the said amount be issued. It appears that subsequently the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 for saying the certificate of recovery but the same was refused by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 4-7-74. THEreafter the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 15-7-71 impugning the order of respondent No. 1 dated 31-1-73.