- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 223 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the proceedings for we recovery of Rs. 4,082-5-8 from the petitioner-company under Section 6h (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), including the warrant of attachment issued by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Firozabad, be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari.
(2.) THE undisputed facts leading to this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is Jain Glass Works (Private), Ltd. , Company, Harangau, Agra, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of various kinds of glasswares and has its glass factory at Harangau, Firozabad, district Agra. During the period between March 1960 and May 1961, the petitioner-company. for one reason or the other, had to lay off some workmen from time to time. One hundred and sixty-nine workmen of the petitioner-company moved the State Government under Section 6h (1) of the Act for the recovery of their lay-off compensation for the period between March 1960 and May 1961. A notice was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner [to whom powers has been delegated by the State Government to pass orders under Section 6h (1) of the Act] to the petitioner-company on 7 April 1962 to make payment) of the amount claimed as lay-off compensation within a week of the receipt of the notice of to show cause why a recovery certificate for the recovery of the amount claimed by the workmen be not issued. The employers were also asked to attend the office on 16 April 1962 along with relevant records for inspection. The petitioner-company failed to appear on the date fixed and the recovery certificate was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Agra, by his order dated 25 April 1962.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the claim of the workmen was not admissible due to several reasons, that they had made a representation to the State Government in reply to the notice and the same contained their objections and that after the objections had been raised by them a disputed claim of the workmen could not be proceeded with under Sub-section (1) of Section 6h of the Act but the proper remedy of the workman was to apply under Section 6h (3) to the labour court for the determination of their claim before it could be executed in the manner provided under Section 6h (1) of the Act. Another point raised by the petitioner-company is that no claim had been made by individual workman but the State Government had proceeded merely on the complaint filed by Jain Glass Works Mechanical Worker's Union, Harangun, Agra (opposite party 6 ). Is was for this reason that the petitioner did not make the workmen as parties to this petition.;