N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner -Company has prayed for quashing the order of certificate and entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 1/04 -05 initiated against the company under the provisions of Public Demands Recovery Act for realization of arrears of wages, of August and September 2004, of the concerned workmen under the provisions of Sec.33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act).
(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that the petitioner -Company is Public Limited Company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of flat glass. The factory of the company is situated at Bhurkunda, Ram -garh within the district of Hazaribagh. The company purchased the said factory in the year 1999. The said Company has about 1400 old permanent employees and more than 100 casual and contract workers. Despite financial constraints, the Company 'sunit is running without interruption for more than five years. But the production declined during the financial year 2004 -05 causing loss of Rs. 3 lacs per day till September, 2004. The loss was at about one crore every month. The company 'smanagement held several meetings with the Employees Union and impressed upon them to gear up production for survival, but to no effect. The employees Union created such a situation that ultimately its both the furnaces cooled down in October, 2004. The company is in extremely adverse financial condition and it led to complete exhaustion of fund and under the compelling condition of acute financial crisis, the payment of wages of the employees for the month of August and September 2004 could not be made. One Md. Ahshan Ansari, General Secretary, Jharkhand Glass Shramik Union, Bhadani Nagar, Hazaribagh made a complaint before the respondent No. 5 against non -payment of salary and wages of the workers of the factory for the month of August and September 2004. On the basis thereof a report was submitted by the respondent No. 5 to the Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 6.12.2004 recommending certificate proceedings for realization of two months wages amounting to Rs. 1,58,57,975.75 under the provisions of Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act. Neither any notice was served on the management, nor the Deputy Labour Commissioner held any enquiry and took any evidence regarding the authorization by the individual workers. The reports of the D.L.C. was forwarded to the Under Secretary (respondent No. 2) who requested the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to initiate certificate proceeding under the provisions of P.D.R. Act in exercise of its power under Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act. The requisition for a certificate was made before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh for realization of the aforesaid amount towards the arrears of salary for the month of August and September 2004. The Certificate Officer thereafter issued notice under Sec. 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as P.D.R. Act) to the petitioner -company which was received in the petitioner 'soffice on 12.1.2005. The Directors of the company have been shown as the certificate debtors in the said notices. The applicant Md. Ahshan Ansari, who claims as the General Secretary of Jharkhand Glass Shramik Union, has got no authorization by the workmen to file the said application.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the certificate proceeding is bad in law and Is wholly without jurisdiction as the application filed at the instance of Md. Ahshan Ansari is not at all maintainable under the provisions of Section 33 (C)(i) of the I.D. Act. Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act provides for an application by the workmen or a person duly authorized by him in the prescribed form as provided in the rules. The Union or the office bearer of the Union has no authority to make an application under Sec.33(C)(i) on behalf of the workmen, though they can raise an industrial dispute. The said demand at best can be raised under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and there is no application of Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act in the facts and circumstances of the case and the certificate proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner has also arbitrarily issued the certificate without making any prima facie enquiry and/or without being satisfied that the money claimed to be realized under the certificate is prima facie due to be paid under the provisions of Sec.33(C)(i) of the I.D. Act. The respondents have also whimsically acted in hot haste only in order to please the local union leaders who are more interested in political gain rather than serving the interest of the workmen of the industry.;