G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against order dated July 27, 1993 vide which the learned single Judge dismissed C.W.P. No. 82 of 1992 (reported in 1994 Lab IC 1385) filed by the appellant for quashing the applications filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the 1947 Act') and notices dated November 14, 1991 and November 26, 1991 issued by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda (respondent No. 1).
(2.) Respondent No. 2 - Babu Ram Bansal submitted two applications under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'the 1955 Act') to the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Labour and Employment Department, Chandigarh for recovery of Rs. 66,766.30 and Rs. 64,359.60 from the Dainik Tribune, Chandigarh and The Punjabi Tribune, Chandigarh respectively claiming that the said amount was due to him on account of mandatory monthly retainer allowance as Palekar Wage Board Award. In its reply the appellant raised several objections including the one relating to the jurisdiction of the Government of Punjab to entertain the applications and after considering the same, the Labour Commissioner, Punjab informed respondent No. 2 that as per Rule 36 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the 1957 Rules'), his case fell within the jurisdiction of Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed two applications under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act in the Labour Courts at Chandigarh and Bhatinda for payment of the amounts specified therein. After registration of the application filed before him, respondent No. 1 issued notices dated November 14, 1991 and November 26, 1991 to the appellant for its appearance on January 9, 1992 and January 22, 1992. However, instead of putting appearance, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the applications and the two notices by asserting that respondent No. 2 was not its employee and, therefore, he did not have the locus standi to claim benefits under the 1955 Act and in any case, respondent No. 1 did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by him under Section 33-C of the 1947 Act.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 controverted the appellant's plea that respondent No. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by him under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am, however, of the opinion that the points raised by Mr. Mittal have no merit. Even a bare perusal of Section 17 of the Act of 1955 would reveal that where any amount is due under the Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, and the said amount is an admitted amount, the remedy, of course, is to make an application to the State Government for recovery of the said amount but that is without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. The words without prejudice to any other mode of recovery undoubtedly convey the meaning that the other modes of recovery, like civil suit, or resort to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or any other remedy that may be available, are not barred. In fact, it appears that Section 17 was framed with a view to provide a speedy remedy and it is for that reason that on its satisfaction that any amount is due, the State Government can issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. That being the position, respondent No. 2 was well within his rights to approach the Labour Court. In so far as the question of seeking a reference from the Government is concerned, suffice it to say that even though the title of application mentions Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the prayer is in terms of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. A working journalist is entitled to the wages at rates not less than specified in the order on coming into operation of the order of the Central Government as is clearly made out from the provisions of Section 13 of the Act aforesaid. The application is based upon the wages that a working journalist is entitled to under Palekar Wage Board Award and Bachawat Wage Board Award. The reading of the application as such does not show that respondent No. 2 is asking for settlement or determination of his rights. May be permissible for the petitioner to show to the contrary but the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to issue summons at least is not based upon the defence that might be protected. On the other hand, any Court dealing with the matter of any kind, would have jurisdiction if on the pleadings made out in the petition, it is competent to grant the relief. It shall, thus, be open to petitioner to contest the matter before the Labour Court and obviously, if the very right of respondent No. 2 to claim the wages is disputed, the Labour Court will go into the matter but at this stage it cannot be said that the claim of respondent No. 2 was such which could not be gone into by the Labour Court without seeking a reference. The last contention of Mr. Mittal was that the only respondent which was necessary or proper party and thus to be arrayed in application under Section 33-C(2) was the Trust and not the Tribune Trust is again such a question which cannot and should not be decided in proceedings as determination of question aforesaid also depends upon the various facts. This question again is in the domain of Labour Court. Be that as it may the aforesaid question would be decided by the Labour Court but that would be only if the defence is put in by the petitioner before the Labour Court and all the points referred to above are pressed into service. It is, however, made clear that in case objections to the effect aforesaid are raised before the Labour Court the same would be decided by it. (Italicisation is ours);