SAYAR Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an employee in the Mahalaxmi Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar since 1947. He was also an active Trade Unionist. THE management of the mills was taken over by the Central Government with effect from January 9, 1967 and an Authorised Controller was appointed under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. During continuance of the management of the Government through the Auth-rised Controller, on January 19, 1973 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner for alleged mis-conduct and he was dismissed by the Authorised Controller on April 16, 1973 Petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his service which led to a reference of the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court. In the meantime the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'the 1974 Act') came into force resulting investing of the rights of owner of the Mills in the Central Government and then being transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corpora ion. THE Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that no relief could be granted against the owner of the textile undertaking which had been nationalised as also the Government or the National Textile Corporation. In short, it has been held that the effect of this change over has been to deprive the petitioner of his right to get any relief against anyone. Hence this petition.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to relief against the National Textile Corporation since the matter falls within the ambit of section 5 (2) (c) and section 17 (1) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel), for the petitioner on the decision in the Workmen. Vs. THE Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (!) involving construction of corresponding provisions contained in the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. In reply, learned counsel for the National Textile Corporation contended that the dispute relating to a workman dismissed prior to nationalisation of the Undertaking under the 1974 Act abates since it is not saved by section 4 (6) and section 5 (3) of the Act. It was urged that the matter does not fall within the ambit of section 5 (2) or section 17 (1) of the Act. It was urged in the alternative that the relief, if any, can be given only against the owner of the sick undertaking and not against the National Textile Corporation.

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Authorised Controller on April 16, 1973 after the management of the sick textile undertaking had been taken over by the Central Government and prior to nationalisation with effect from April 1, 1974 under the 1974 Act. The proceeding for adjudication of the industrial dispute arising from petitioner's dismissal was pending on April 1, 1974. Accordingly, by virtue of section 4 (6) it did not abate and could be continued and the relief obtained enforced against the National Textile Corporation. The relief of reinstatement and payment of back wages granted to the petitioner on his termination being held invalid would automatically result in his continuing as an employee of the National Textile Corporation, On and from the appointed day i. e. April 1, 1974, by virtue of section 14 (1) of the 1974 Act. The claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and back wages from the date of dismissal (April 16, 1973) upto the appointed day (April 1, 1974) would fall under section 5 (2) (c) since it is in respect of a period after the Management of the undertaking had been taken over by the Central Government. For the liability from the appointed day (April 1, 1974) the obvious answer is in sec. 14 (1) which says that such an employee continues as an employee of the National Textile Corporation. We see no difficulty in reaching this conclusion from the plain language of these provisions.