The petition was heard by Mr. Justice Broome of the Allahabad High Court and was allowed by him.
The Divisional Bench distinguished Kasturi Sons P Ltd. v. N. Salivatesaram Anr.
50,654 9 6.
The facts of the case may number be stated briefly.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March, 15, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
On July 21, 1958 the Labour Commissioner, purporting to act under the first sub section of s. 6 H issued a certificate to the Collector, Allahabad for the recovery of Rs.
entitled before the certificate companyld issue.
The appellant Company is the successor of a private companycern which went under the name of Kays Construction Company and was owned by one Mr. H. M. Khosla who is number Managing Director of the appellant Company.
Against this decision an appeal was filed under the Letters Patent of the High Court and by the order, number under appeal, the judgment of Broome J. was reversed.
574 of 1960 and Supreme Court Appeal No.
One of the questions in dispute before the Tribunal was the reinstatement and back wages of the workmen who were number re employed by the appellant Company.
53 of 1962 respectively.
Sir Iqbal Ahmad, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri for the appellant in both the appeals .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Certain objections having been filed by the appellant Company before the State Government, the Regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad was ordered to verify the claims.
In the opinion of the Division Bench this decision supported their companyclusion that the companyputation in terms of money of a benefit was something different from mere arithmetical calculation of the amount of back wages.
This led to an Industrial dispute before the Allahabad Industrial Tribunal Sugar and an award was made on January 31, 1958.
1108 of 1963 is against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, dated March 15, 1962 and Civil Appeal No.
1,06,588 6 6.
1108 and 1109 of 1963.
Civil Appeal No.
133 of the Constitution as in the opinion of the High Court the proceedings from which the appeal arose before the High Court was number a civil proceeding within Art.
Sup./65 2 A.I.R. 1955 Patna 49.
226 of the Constitution to have the orders dated September 9 and 10, 1959 quashed by a writ of certiorari or by any other suitable order or direction and for release of some property which, it may be mentioned, was under attachment after the first certificate was issued.
B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondents Nos.
On November 2, 1959 the appellant Company filed a petition under Art.
In the meantime, the Labour Commissioner issued another certificate on September 9, 1959 by which the sum to be recovered was reduced to Rs.
As special leave has been granted against the judgment of the High Court and we are of opinion that the appeal against that judgment must be dismissed, we do number think it necessary to decide the other appeal.
1109 of 1963 is against an order of the same High Court, dated May 9, 1962 declining to certify the case under Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. These are two appeals by special leave in which Kays Construction Co. P Ltd. is the appellant.
It appears that Mr. Khosla found it unprofitable to companytinue the business as his own and he stopped it for a while before Kays Construction Co. Private Ltd. came into existence.
This was said to be certainly due and it was stated that for the balance another certificate would issue after the claims were fully verified.
1 to 4 in both the appeals .
On September 10, 1959, the Collector passed an order which was companymunicated telegraphically to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, North East Railway, Gorukhpur demanding the said sum for payment to the workmen, from the security deposited by the appellant Company with the Chief Mechanical Engineer.
He quashed the two orders of the Labour Commissioner and the attachment of the property on companydition that the Company furnished adequate security to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate of Allahabad.
The dispute was companysiderably narrowed before Broom J. The only question that was companysidered was whether the claim of the workmen before the Labour Commissioner fell to be companysidered under the first or the second sub section of s. 6 H. Mr. Justice Broome relying upon the analogy of M. S. S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli v. Rajaram and Another 1 decided under s. 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sesamusa Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others 2 decided under s. 20 of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950, held that as the exact amount was required to be determined, proceedings had to be taken before the Labour Court under the second sub section to determine the money equivalent of the benefit to which the workmen were 1 1960 1 L.L.J. 336.
The appellant Company took over the business and with it, some of the workmen of the former companycern but number all.
