BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS is a case which brings to the fore apathy of the petitioner driven from pillar to post by two authorities who have been statutorily entrusted with the task of discharging the obligations for execution of awards granting monetary reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act and the employer, the University of Jodhpur (Now JNV University), another instrumentality of the State is making merry by not implementing the Award for making of payment even after expiry of a decade from the date of the award as the facts to be stated hereinafter shall presently reveal.
(2.) THE petitioner an employee of the respondent employer, the Jodhpur University, raised the dispute about termination of his services with effect from 1. 6. 86. THE said dispute was made subject matter of a reference made to the Labour Court, Jodhpur u/s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said reference, Labour Dispute No. 59 of 1988, an Award was made on 12. 12. 1990 declaring the retrenchment of the petitioner to be invalid and directing the employer University to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect and the University was further directed to make payment of arrears of wages w. e. f. the date of termination of the service to the date of retrenchment. THE petitioner was reinstated by the respondent University on 4. 6. 92 and all wages due w. e. f. the date of reinstatement have been paid to the petitioner. However, according to the claim of the petitioner no arrears were paid in terms of the Award from the date of termination dated 1. 6. 86 to the date of reinstatement 4. 6. 92. This fact is not in dispute. THE petitioner, in the first instance, moved an application u/s. 33c (2) for determination of the money due under the Award to which he was entitled before the Labour Court, Jodhpur. THE Labour Court by its order dated 26. 12. 1991 held that since there is no dispute about quantification of the benefits, and finding the money due under the award is merely a matter of computation, application was not maintainable under Sec. 33c (2) and the workman has his only remedy to move the State Govt. u/s. 33c (1 ). Advised by the Labour Court, the petitioner moved the State Govt. for issuing certificate for recovering due from the employer under the Award. THE application was rejected by a cryptic order dated 7. 8. 96 (Annex. P/10 ). Though the order states that the detailed order is available on the file, neither the same has been served on the petitioner nor a copy of that has been given to him nor in reply to the writ petition any such order has been placed on record. THE petitioner again moved an application for recovering the sum due under the Award which too was dismissed on 10. 12. 97 by referring to the earlier order dated 7. 8. 96 that the application is not maintainable. This denial of lending assistance in executing the Award by the State as well as the Labour Court has led the petitioner to file this petition. He has challenged the orders Annex. P/10 and P/11 dated 7. 8. 96 and 10. 12. 97 respectively made by the State Govt. rejecting his application u/s. 33c (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Annex. P/3 the rejection of his application u/s. 33c (2) for determining the amount due under the Award for the purposes of its recovery vide its order dated 10. 12. 90. THE stand taken by the University employer is that since the petitioner has been reinstated and he has been paid all his due w. e. f. the date of reinstatement and he has joined without protest they have thought it not necessary to make payment of the arrears by assuming that the petitioner has no grievance in respect thereof. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent University, requests the Court to deem it a case of waiver of claim to arrears by the petitioner. Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the State has supplied reason for the two cryptic orders that since the claim to the amount payable under the Award was disputed by the University, there is no procedure prescribed under Sec. 33c (1) for determination of such dispute and the remedy of the petitioner was to have raised another industrial dispute for determining that sum due under the award and therefore, the application has rightly been dismissed. This reason, at least is not disclosed on the face of the order communicated to the petitioner. Both the contentions to throw out this petition by the respondents appears to be incomprehensible. So far as the University is concerned, the binding Award has already come into existence reinstating the petitioner with full back wages with effect from the date of his termination. There was no need for the petitioner to raise a protest before being taken on duty to reserve his right to recover the arrears of emoluments which had been awarded to him under due adjudication. The fact that the petitioner was not willing to forgo his backwages prior to reinstatement is apparent from the fact that soon after the award was made he made an application u/s. 33c (2) for determination of the amount payable to him under the Award which unfortunately was rejec-ted by the Labour Court even before he was reinstated by holding it to be not main-tainable. Thus, it is as it will be presently seen was an order not warranted under law. The plea of the State Govt. that since the amount is disputed and there is no determination of sum payable under the Award, the determination of amount under the Award could not have been made u/s. 33c, which was beyond its scope and therefore the applications have been rightly rejected, is devoid of any force and contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. Considering the scheme of Sec. 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 6-H of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of which were para materia with the unamended provisions of Sec. 33c of the Act of 1947. Even otherwise Section 33c (1) & (2) leaves no room of doubt that the contention is without any substance. Sec. 33c as it exists, and is applicable to the present facts and circumstances, reads as under:- 33c. Recovery of money due from an employer - (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer. Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. " (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months. Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit. (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case. (4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-Sec. (1 ). (5) Where workman employed under the same employer are entitled to receive form him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen. Explanation -In this section "labour Court" includes any court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State. The legislative history of the enactment of Section 33c would through light that this provision in the present form has come to be enacted for the purpose of providing speedy remedy to individual employees to enable them to enforce their rights about the recovery of money. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as originally enacted did not provide for remedy to individual employees to enforce their existing rights i. e. to say where there was no provision about their entitlement of right to recover money due from the employer, Industrial Disputes Act did not provide any remedy for their determination of sum disputes and recovery thereof. The lacuna was to some extent remedied by enacting Sec. 20 in the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (since repealed) which provided for the recovery of the amount due under an Award or decision. This was a forerunner of Sec. 33c of the Act of 1947. Sec. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 provided that the money due under the Award of the Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue on application being made by the employee entitled to the said money. Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 20 of the Industrial Disputes Act provided that where any workman was entitled to receive from the employer under an award or decision of an Industrial Tribunal which could be computed in terms of money, the said money value of such benefit could be computed and the amount be determined payable in lieu thereof by the Industrial Tribunal and the amount so determined could be recovered as provided under sub-sec. (1 ). Thus, money claim directly flowing from the award could be recovered under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 20 and the monetary value of any benefit flowing from the Award could be determined under Sub-Sec. (2) and then it could be recovered in accordance with sub-Sec. (1) thereof. In 1953 Sec. 25-I was inserted in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act which provided that any money due from employer under the provisions of this Chapter, whether by way of compensation or by way of wages, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery may by recovered as arrears of land revenue or as the public demand on application being made by the person entitled to the money. This provision was laconic in the sense that it did not provide for recovery of any money due to a workman from employer other than under Chapter V-A. The provision did not apply to moneys or benefits due under awards or settlement. This led to the enactment of Industrial Disputes (Amendment & Misc. Provisions) Act, 1956 through which Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 was repealed and so also Sec. 25-I in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and instead thereof Sec. 33c and 36-A were inserted in the Act of 1947.
(3.) THE provisions so included in 1956 still did not include under Sub-Sec. (2) the quantification of money to which a workman is entitled but was confined to the computation in terms of money the value of benefit to which a workman is entitled and prior to the provision in the present form came into existence, Sec. 33c as it existed and considered by the Supreme Court on two occasions, read as under: " S. 33c. Recovery of money due from an employer - (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or, under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as arrear of land revenue. " (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-sec. (1 ). (3) For the purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case. " Before referring to the Supreme Court decision, it may be noticed that prior to the provisions came into present form, the determination of sum receivable in the form of money from the employer other than under any settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter 5-A or 5-B was not subject matter of either Sec. 33c (1) or 33c (2) It was only after the provision came in the present form, any workman entitled to receive from the employer any money but the quantum was in dispute came to be within the jurisdiction to be determined by the Labour Court u/s. 33c (2) A perusal of the aforesaid provision would go to show that while sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 33c provides an additional mode of recovery of any money due to a workman under any award, settlement or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter 5-B, he is entitled to make application before the appropriate Govt. without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him. It is on making of such application that the appropriate Govt. on being satisfied that any money is so due, is required to issue a certificate for that money about the claim recovery of which it is satisfied to the Collector who shall then proceed to recover the sum so certified as an arrears of land revenue. Thus, a duty is cast on the Govt. on an application being made in this behalf by the workman that any money is due under any Award or settlement to satisfy itself about the fact whether any sum is due under settlement or Award or under provisions of Chapter V-A or 5-B as the case may be. This satisfaction necessarily means adoption of a fair procedure by the Govt. or through any of its delegates to satisfy about the existence of right of the applicant to receive any amount due under the settlement or Award or under Chapter 5-A or 5-B as the case may be and the sum that is due thereunder. This necessarily requires the procedure of computation and determination of amount due before certifying specific sum due under an award. Because unless the State Govt. is satisfied about the quantum of sum due to the workman it cannot issue certificate for the recovery of the specified sum. It is for the State Govt. to issue a certificate of the specific sum for the purpose of the Collector to take proceedings of recovering the sum by invoking the provisions of the Land Revenue Act as are invoked in recovery of the arrears of land revenue. It is not at all necessary that exact specified sum directly computed must have been awarded by the Court. ;