IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 990 of 2004 (M/B) Wimco Seedlings Ltd. Regd. Office Indian Mercantile Chambers Ramji Bhai Kamani Marg, Baqlard Estate Mumbai- 400038. .......... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Dehradun. 2. Industrial Tribunal of Uttaranchal at Haldwani District: Nainital. 3. O.P. Yadav S/o Shri Sahukar C/o Shri S.D. Nagaich, 6-Janki Flats, Rampur Bag, Bareilly, U.P. ........ Respondents Sri R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.C.Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2. None for respondent No. 3. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Sri R.K. Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri N.C.Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “i) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 28.12.2002 (Annexure –1) of the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 1. ii) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 not to enforce the impugned notification dated 28.12.2002 (Annexure –1 of the writ petition). iii) Issue an order, direction or writ in the 2 nature of prohibition restraining the Respondent No. 2 from hearing and deciding the application of the respondent No. 3 (Annexure –3 of the writ petition). iv) Issue an interim order, or direction or writ staying the proceedings before the respondent No. 2 as initiated by the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the application of the respondent No. 3. v) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of Industrial Tribunal in pursuance of the application of the respondent No. 3. vi) Issue any such order or direction as may be found just and proper under the circumstances of the present case, and vii) Award costs to the petitioner.” 3. The matter arises out of the proceedings initiated by third respondent, who was in the employment of the petitioner, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani. 4. The petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to entertain a matter under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’). The petitioner’s submissions is that as Section 33C(2) authorizes only a Labour Court to entertain and decide a matter under Section 33C(2), the authorization by the State Government vide impugned Notification (Annexure No. 1) is bad in law. 5. On a perusal of the impugned Notification, we gather that the State Government exercising its power under Section 7-A of the Act has authorized Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani to act as Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act, till the constitution of labour courts in the State. 6. Section 33-C of the Act, reads as follows: 3 “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 VA or Chapter VB] the workman himself or any other persons authorized 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, made 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 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 cable 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-section (1). (5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from 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. 4 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.] 7. The State Government by virtue or Section 7-A of the Act is empowered to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunal. Section 7-A of the Act, reads as follows: “[7A. Tribunals. –(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial dispute relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule [and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.] (2) A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Tribunal unless- (a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or [(aa) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District judge or an Additional District judge; (4) The appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons as assessors to advise the Tribunal in the proceedings before it.]” 8. On a bare perusal of the above quoted Section 7-A it becomes apparent that the appropriate Government may constitute one or more Tribunal for the adjudication of the industrial disputes relating to any matter and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. It is in exercise of this power that the State Government has authorized Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani to exercise the jurisdiction of a labour court under Section 33C(2) till the constitution of the labour courts. 9. Section 7 of the Act provides for constitution of Labour Courts whereas Section 7-A provides for constitution of Industrial Tribunals. According to the Explanation to Section 33-C “Labour Courts” includes any court constituted under any 5 law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State. The State of Uttaranchal vide impugned Notification has authorized Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani to act as Labour Court under Section 33-C of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the person manning Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani is qualified to be appointed as Judge of Labour Court. 10. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above quoted provisions of law, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Notification (Annexure No. 1) issued by the State Government authorizing Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani to act as labour court for the purposes of Section 33C(2) of the Act. 11. The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani for necessary compliance and for proceeding further with the matter expeditiously. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 03.05.2006 03.05.2006 H