Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. On 20 April 1958, an application -on behalf of 34 workmen employed by the Malout Transport Company (Private), Ltd., was filed before the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, claiming on behalf of the workmen and of course from the employer-company a sum of Rs. 16,185 The claim was based on a settlement between the employer and the employees arrived at in June 1955, according to which the management bad agreed to pay night allowance to their employees in the same manner as had been awarded by the industrial tribunal in favour of the employees of another company called the Kartar Bus company of Jullundur. The Labour Commissioner, on receipt of the application, issued notice to the Malout Transport Company, but there was no appearance put in on behalf of the company, and on 21 June 1958, therefore, the Labour commissioner issued a certificate of recovery addressed to the Collector stating that Bs. 16,185 was recoverable from the company. The certificate was granted under Section 330, Sub-section (i), of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Malout Transport Company, thereupon, filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the orders of the Labour Commissioner and the proceedings before him. It was claimed that the Labour Commissioner was not authorized to do anything under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, as such power could be exercised only by Government. Further, it was claimed that neither the Labour Commissioner nor Government could have decided what amount was possibly due under any settlement from the petitioning company to its employees, and that such a matter was determinate only by a labour court.

5. A very similar question was considered by this Court in Civil Writ NO. 1187 of 1958 concerning this very company, Malout Transport Company (Private), Ltd. v. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, and Ors. That dispute arose out of another term of the same settlement between the parties under which the management bad agreed to accept work from their workers for nine hours a day and to pay overtime at double the rate for any extra work per day. A claim was made on behalf of the employees that certain amount of money, for overtime work, was due from the company, and the question was whether the Labour Commissioner was competent to determine the amount. Capoor, J., who decided that case, held, that the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide such a matter and it had to be decided by the labour court as provided in Section 33C, Sub-section (2), of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision of Capoor, J., we understand, was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the sense that an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was dismissed, in limine.