Surendra Naik Vs State of Goa (Bombay High Court)
Rejection of application u/s. 33-C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act due to incorrect name of proprietorship concern unjustified: Bombay HC
Bombay High Court held that rejection of an application before the Labour Commissioner u/s. 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act because of incorrect mentioning of the name of the proprietorship concern is unsustainable in law as proprietorship concern has no legal entity, however, proprietor of the concern is liable for legal action.
Facts- The Petitioner claiming to be the Employee of Respondent No. 3 preferred an Application before the Labour Commissioner under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under the award dated 20.11.2018 in Reference No. IT/11/16, claiming the amount awarded together with interest from 20.11.2018. The learned Labour Commissioner, though issued notice to the Employer [Respondent No. 3], accepted the objections of Respondent No. 3 and dismissed the said Application on 18th/19th October 2023, which is challenged in the present Petition.
It is submitted that the dispute was raised by the Union before the Conciliation Officer on 28.12.2012, upon which, notice was issued to the Employer. He candidly admitted that while raising the dispute, the Employer was shown as M/s Vishal Shipping Company Private Limited, Vasco, however, in particular, all the disputes/claims, were clearly disclosing that the workmen were employed as Crew on the barge, namely, M.V. Mahima MRH 611 and they were not paid salary from July 2012 to December 2012.
