- (1.) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner- Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation ('RIICO' for short), against the order of learned Labour Court, Bhilwara, passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('Act of 1947' for short) dated 14.06.2012.
(2.) Both the learned counsels at Bar submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10192/2012 - RIICO Ltd. Bhilwara Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Ors. and 48 connected writ petitions decided on 6.3.2014 in which this Court held as under: "22. On a careful consideration of the entire material before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner- RIICO cannot be said to be the 'Employer' of the respondents/workmen at any point of time as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1947. Admittedly, the petitioner- RIICO was also not a party to the settlement dated 29.11.2000 (Tripartite agreement between the workmen, Employer/company and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhilwara). As a matter of fact, the petitioner- RIICO, was not in the scene in the year 2000 at all for which the purported dues of the workmen have been now determined by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara, by the impugned order dated 14.06.2012. It seems that the petitioner- RIICO has been arrayed as respondent before the learned Labour Court only because in the year 2007, it had taken over the assets of the defaulting Unit of RPL (I) Ltd., in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 29 of the SFC Act, 1951, and had even sold the same to one M/s Kanchan (India) Ltd., and the sale consideration still falling short of the dues of the first charge holders, namely, RIICO and the RFC vide the above quoted communication of the petitioner- RIICO, addressed to the Bhartiya Processors Shramik Sangh, Bhilwara. This Court, in the orders cited supra, in the interim order as well as in the contempt petition, had only protected the interest of the respondents/workmen, which were available with them, in accordance with law. No specific liability to square up these dues was fixed upon the petitioner- RIICO by the interim order of this Court, which was upheld by the Division Bench and for the alleged breach of which, the contempt petition was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 23. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned Labour Court on the orders passed by this Court for affixing the liability of paying the dues of the workmen on the petitioner- RIICO under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, is rather misplaced. The learned Labour Court has also referred the constitutional provisions without specifying any such specific provision of the Constitution of India for affixing the liability on the present petitioner. The right of life, wages, works etc. per se would not affix the liability on a public body, like RIICO, which acted in exercise of its statutory powers in taking over the secured assets and selling the same under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act, 1951. 24. The reliance placed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara, on the provisions of Section 25-FFF of the Act of 1947, is also equally misplaced. The provisions specifically provide for a contingency of payment of dues of the workmen even in the cases of closure of the unit for compelling reasons, including financial difficulties and financial losses to the extent of 3 months' wages under the parameters for payment even in the contingency of closure of the unit and deemingly applying Section 25 F of the Act of 1947 in the cases of closure of unit. That provision is of little help to the workmen in the present case, whose dues were determined under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Delhi , the question of entitlement and fixing of liability to pay those dues, are not even the questions, which could be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court, within the four corners of the ambit and scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. 25. Therefore, it is clearly borne out that the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara, has fallen into error in deciding this question of entitlement of the respondents/workmen to realize these dues from the petitioner-RIICO, which was neither the 'Employer' of the respondents/workmen, nor was a party to the settlement between the workmen and the Employer/company dated 29.11.2000; and thus has no concern with the dues of the respondents/workmen in the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act o 1947 before the Labour Court, the axe of liability could not fall upon it. 26. The provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, has no application in fastening the liability to pay the dues of the workmen, on a third party like the present petitioner- RIICO who in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 29 of the SFC Act, 1951, which is another central legislation, has taken over the assets of the defaulting unit of the Employer/company and realized its own dues by sale in auction of such assets. The provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 refer only to the workmen, employer and the settlement award, and under the provisions of Chapter V-A and V-B of the said Act. The method of realization of the dues provided in these provisions is only as arrears of land revenue through the concerned Collector, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. 27. These words 'without prejudice to any other mode of recovery', does not entitle the workmen to get the same realized from the sale realization of the assets of the secured creditors in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the SFC Act, particularly, when that exercise of such powers has already been completed way back in the year 2007, much before the impugned order was passed by the learned Labour Court on 14.06.2012. It would be clearly contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Delhi and to permit the Labour Court to decide such question of entitlement of the workmen to recover these dues under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 from the third party like the present petitioner-RIICO while deciding this question under the provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, therefore, this part of the impugned order cannot be sustained. 28. This Court is also unable to appreciate the reasons given by the learned Labour Court in the impugned order dated 14.06.2012, which is clearly in conflict with the earlier precedent of the same Court between the same parties, and same was available before it in respect of same company, RPL (I) Ltd., in its order dated 09.03.2007, quoted above. But, it seems to be a bonafide lapse. 29. Thus, this Court finds no ground to sustain the said reasonings given by the learned Labour Court in the impugned order affixing this liability on the present petitioner- RIICO to pay the dues of the workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. The way out for the respondents/workmen seems to be to approach the learned District Collector, Bhilwara, for making recovery of such dues as arrear of land revenue as provided in Section 33-C (2) of the said Act of 1947. As stated above and agreed by both the learned counsels, that in the recent past, the District Collector, appears to have sold some of other assets of the said defaulting unit of RPL (I) Ltd., and might have realized some amount on account of such sale. If it is so, and some funds on account of sale of other assets of the said company, over which the petitioner- RIICO or RFC had no charge, and never took over such assets, like land or any other assets, then it is for the learned District Collector to settle the dues of the workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 or gratuity etc. and other dues of the workmen. 30. It is also open for the respondents/workmen to realise their dues from the defaulting company- RPL (I) Ltd. itself or its Director(s) or Promoters who might have stood as guarantor for the said company's liabilities. The District Collector, Bhilwara, is thus directed to consider the claims of the respondents/workmen for settling the dues out of the sale proceeds from the other properties/assets, over which the petitioner-RIICO and the RFC have no charge. The recovery of such dues from the other parties is, however, not the subject-matter of the present writ petition before this Court filed by the petitioner- RIICO. 31. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire facts and legal position in the aforesaid case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present set of writ petitions filed by the RIICO, deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 14.06.2012 of the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara to the extent it affixed the responsibility and liability on the petitioner- RIICO to pay the dues of the workmen determined u/s 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, is quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner- RIICO. The remaining part of the order of Labour Court, is however upheld. 32. Resultantly, the present writ petitions of RIICO are allowed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith."
(3.) Accordingly, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in same terms. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;