UNITED PRESS LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner is a public limited company, namely, the United Press Limited, Bhagalpur. It has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the Notification of the Government of Bihar No. III-DI-21029/58LT-78, Dated 7-7-1958, making a reference to the Labour Court of Patna under Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the INdustrial Disputes Act, requiring the said Labour Court to determine the amount in money value of the benefit legally recoverable from the petitioner should not be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Notification of the State Government is Annexure E to this application and is in the following terms: Government of Bihar, Labour Department. NOTIFICATION Dated Ranchi the 16th Asarh, 1880 7 th July 1958. No. III/DI-21029/58LT-78 -- Whereas the workman named in the Schedule annexed hereto is entitled to receive from his employer, namely, the United Press Ltd., Bhagalpur of which Shri Birendra Narayan Agrawala is the proprietor, the benefits of retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25F of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947, (XIV of 1947) which are capable of being computed in terms of money. And whereas it is necessary to determine the amount at which such benefits should be computed and recovered from the said employer; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the said Act, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to specify the Labour Court at Patna constituted by the State Government under Section 7 of the said Act as the Labour Gourt for determining the amount in money value to which the workman is entitled, ANNEXURE. 1. Shri Ahmad Hussain, Daftari. By order of the Governor of Bihar, Sd. B.P. Singh. Secretary to Government."

(2.) THE argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the Notification of the State Government is ultra vires and without jurisdiction because there was no retrenchment compensation payable to respondent No. 3 Sri Ahmad Hussain under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which sets out the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of a workman. In our opinion, the argument is well founded and must be accepted as correct. THE case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that respondent No. 3 was discharged from service because he was unwilling to join the Patna Branch of the Press. It is not a case of retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and no question of retrenchment compensation arises in mis case. This position is admitted by respondent No. 3 Ahmad Hussain in his written-statement which is Annexure F to the application. In paragraph 12 of this written-statement respondent No. 3 has stated before the Labour Court: