IAG COMPANY LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner -Company has prayed for quashing the order of certificate and entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 1/04 -05 initiated against the company under the provisions of Public Demands Recovery Act for realization of arrears of wages, of August and September 2004, of the concerned workmen under the provisions of Sec.33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act).

(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that the petitioner -Company is Public Limited Company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of flat glass. The factory of the company is situated at Bhurkunda, Ram -garh within the district of Hazaribagh. The company purchased the said factory in the year 1999. The said Company has about 1400 old permanent employees and more than 100 casual and contract workers. Despite financial constraints, the Company 'sunit is running without interruption for more than five years. But the production declined during the financial year 2004 -05 causing loss of Rs. 3 lacs per day till September, 2004. The loss was at about one crore every month. The company 'smanagement held several meetings with the Employees Union and impressed upon them to gear up production for survival, but to no effect. The employees Union created such a situation that ultimately its both the furnaces cooled down in October, 2004. The company is in extremely adverse financial condition and it led to complete exhaustion of fund and under the compelling condition of acute financial crisis, the payment of wages of the employees for the month of August and September 2004 could not be made.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the certificate proceeding is bad in law and Is wholly without jurisdiction as the application filed at the instance of Md. Ahshan Ansari is not at all maintainable under the provisions of Section 33 (C)(i) of the I.D. Act. Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act provides for an application by the workmen or a person duly authorized by him in the prescribed form as provided in the rules. The Union or the office bearer of the Union has no authority to make an application under Sec.33(C)(i) on behalf of the workmen, though they can raise an industrial dispute. The said demand at best can be raised under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and there is no application of Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act in the facts and circumstances of the case and the certificate proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner has also arbitrarily issued the certificate without making any prima facie enquiry and/or without being satisfied that the money claimed to be realized under the certificate is prima facie due to be paid under the provisions of Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act. The respondents have also whimsically acted in hot haste only in order to please the local union leaders who are more interested in political gain rather than serving the interest of the workmen of the industry.