Case: M/S Unichem Laboratories Ltd Vs. Rani Devi

was justified in holding that there was no privity of contract of any nature between the appellant and Dharam Das Yadav in relation to the quarter and, therefore, they were not competent to file a suit under the Act to seek respondents eviction from the quarter and such suit could be filed either by the State or/and Labour Commissioner? Yet another question as to whether the High Court was justified in holding that there did not exist any tenancy between the appellant and the worker in respect of the quarter? We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as, in our view, the questions posed deserve to be answered in appellant’s favour and against the respondents for the reasons mentioned infra.27) It is not in dispute that the State had allotted the quarters to the appellant under the Act by issuing an allotment order. It is also not in dispute that the allotment of quarters was made by the appellant to their workers for their use and occupation, who were in their employment. That apart and as would be clear, the Act enabled the appellant to deduct the rent every month from the monthly salary of the workers under the Act and lastly, there existed a relationship of the employer and the employee between the appellant and the allottee-worker due to which only, the workers were eligible to secure the quarter under the Act as a part of their service conditions.28) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid undisputed facts were sufficient to hold that contractual relationship between the appellant and the allottee-worker in relation to the quarter for deciding their inter se rights had come into existence. It could be, therefore, construed as tenancy agreement between the parties. The appellant was, therefore, competent to file the civil suit against the worker for his eviction from the quarter allotted to him on the strength of such agreement by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. The breaches alleged by the appellant against the respondents in the suit rendered the worker and all those claiming through him liable to suffer the eviction order because such breaches were rightly held proved by the Trial Court.29) This takes us to examine one more question, which arises for consideration, namely, status of the allottee-worker qua the appellant on his ceasing to be in the appellant’s employment in relation to the quarter. It is not in dispute that the quarter in question was allotted to Dharam Dev Yadav by virtue of he being in the appellants employment. It is also not in dispute that he retired from the service on 12.01.1992. He was, therefore, under contractual obligation to vacate the quarter on his retirement. He did not do so and instead sought extension to vacate the quarter after six months. The appellant granted it. Despite grant of extension, he did not vacate after expiry of six months. In the meantime, he died and his family members (respondents) continued to remain in its occupation. 30) The law on this question is well settled. A contract of tenancy created between the employer and employee in relation to any accommodation terminates on the cessation of the employment of an employee. In other words, such tenancy is only for the period of employment and comes to an end on termination of the contract of employment. Such employee then has no right to remain in occupation of the accommodation once he ceases to be in the employment of his employer. He has to then surrender the accommodation to his employer. 31) In this case, the possession of the original allottee Dharam Dev Yadav became illegal on and after 12.01.1992 when he retired from service because on this date, tenancy in relation to suit quarter also came to an end. In any event, it became unauthorized on and after 30.06.1992. The respondents too had no independent right to remain in occupation of the quarter in question because they were neither in the employment of the appellant and nor were the allottees under the Act so as to entitle them to remain in possession on their own rights.32) The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in recording the aforesaid findings against the respondents and was also justified in passing decree for eviction and recovery of rent by way of damages against the respondents. We find no good ground to interfere in any of these findings. They are accordingly upheld. 33) We may mention here that Section 630 of the Companies Act also deals with such type of cases arising between the Company and its employees to whom the Company has provided the accommodation as part of his service conditions. 34) The Section enables the Company to file a complaint against their employee, if he fails to vacate the accommodation allotted to him by the Company by virtue of his employment on termination of his employment. Such complaint can be filed by the Company in the competent Court wherein the Company can seek employees prosecution, eviction from the accommodation and also for imposition of the fine as specified in the Section. 35) The appellant-Company, in this case could, therefore, also take recourse to invoke the remedy available against the respondents under the Companies Act. It was legally permissible for them to do so because the Act did not bar the applicability of Companies Act for resorting to such remedy against the respondents. Be that as it may. 36) Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that the State/Central Government has issued some G.Os. which, according to him, enable the workers occupying the quarters after ceasing to be in the employment to purchase the quarters as per the procedure prescribed in the G.Os. 37) It is not for this Court to examine this question in these proceedings for the simple reason that this appeal is confined only to examine the legality of an order passed by the High Court in the eviction suit. We, therefore, express no opinion on this question.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order and restore the judgment/decree of the Trial Court, which rightly decreedsuit against the respondents.17) In our considered opinion, both the Courts rightly held that the Civil Suit is not barred under Section 13 of the Act. The reasons are not far toAs mentioned above, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the eviction cases arising under the Act was barred by virtue of Section 21 till 28.04.1972 because the power to try such cases was vested in Labour Commissioner. It was permissible for the Legislature to do so. However, on and after 28.04.1972, Labour Commissioner was divested with the power to try the eviction cases by reason of deletion of Section 21 from the Act. The jurisdiction to try the suits arising under the Act, therefore, stood restored to the Civil Court by virtue of Section 9 of the Code because the Legislature then did not confer such powers to try the matters arising under the Act on other specified authority on and after 28.04.1972. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Civil Court was justified in trying and deciding the suit out of which this appeal arises.21) So far as rigour of Section 13 of the Act is concerned, in our opinion, it does not put any fetter on the powers of the Civil Court to try and decide the eviction cases filed by the State or any authority or allotee of the houses against the person in possession of the quarter on and after 28.04.1972.22) Section 13 only provides that if any order is passed by the State Government or Labour Commissioner under the Act, it shall not be called in question in any Court and no Court shall grant any injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the Act.23) This, in our opinion, only means that no industrial worker or any person alike him, if feels aggrieved of any order passed under the Act by the specified authority, will have a right to file any case in the Civil Court to challenge the legality of any such order or/and action taken under the Act. In other words, it only restricts the rights of the worker/person in approaching the Courts to question the legality of the action taken under the Act. This Section unlike Section 21 cannot be construed as ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the eviction suit filed by the employer under theIt is for these reasons, we are of the view that both the Courts below were right in holding that the suit is not hit by rigors of Section 13 of the Act.We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as, in our view, the questions posed deserve to be answered infavour and against the respondents for the reasons mentioned infra.27) It is not in dispute that the State had allotted the quarters to the appellant under the Act by issuing an allotment order. It is also not in dispute that the allotment of quarters was made by the appellant to their workers for their use and occupation, who were in their employment. That apart and as would be clear, the Act enabled the appellant to deduct the rent every month from the monthly salary of the workers under the Act and lastly, there existed a relationship of the employer and the employee between the appellant and the allottee-worker due to which only, the workers were eligible to secure the quarter under the Act as a part of their service conditions.28) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid undisputed facts were sufficient to hold that contractual relationship between the appellant and the allottee-worker in relation to the quarter for deciding their inter se rights had come into existence. It could be, therefore, construed as tenancy agreement between the parties. The appellant was, therefore, competent to file the civil suit against the worker for his eviction from the quarter allotted to him on the strength of such agreement by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. The breaches alleged by the appellant against the respondents in the suit rendered the worker and all those claiming through him liable to suffer the eviction order because such breaches were rightly held proved by the Trial Court.29) Thistakes us to examine one more question, which arises for consideration, namely, status of the allottee-worker qua the appellant on his ceasing to be in thet in relation to the quarter.It is not in dispute that the quarter in question was allotted to Dharam Dev Yadav by virtue of he being in the appellants employment. It is also not in dispute that he retired from the service on 12.01.1992. He was, therefore, under contractual obligation to vacate the quarter on his retirement. He did not do so and instead sought extension to vacate the quarter after six months. The appellant granted it. Despite grant of extension, he did not vacate after expiry of six months. In the meantime, he died and his family members (respondents) continued to remain in itsIn this case, the possession of the original allottee Dharam Dev Yadav became illegal on and after 12.01.1992 when he retired from service because on this date, tenancy in relation to suit quarter also came to an end. In any event, it became unauthorized on and after 30.06.1992. The respondents too had no independent right to remain in occupation of the quarter in question because they were neither in the employment of the appellant and nor were the allottees under the Act so as to entitle them to remain in possession on their own rights.32) The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in recording the aforesaid findings against the respondents and was also justified in passing decree for eviction and recovery of rent by way of damages against the respondents. We find no good ground to interfere in any of these findings. They are accordinglyThe appellant-Company, in this case could, therefore, also take recourse to invoke the remedy available against the respondents under the Companies Act. It was legally permissible for them to do so because the Act did not bar the applicability of Companies Act for resorting to such remedy against the respondents. Be that as itIt is not for this Court to examine this question in these proceedings for the simple reason that this appeal is confined only to examine the legality of an order passed by the High Court in the eviction suit. We, therefore, express no opinion on this question.