Ahmad, J.

1. The petitioner in this case is a limited concern Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd. It has got a rule issued from this Court against the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or certiorari, or, in the alternative, direction should not be issued forbearing them from giving effect to the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner on 21-2-1953 and 29-4-1953, and restraining them from taking any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1950 and also for quashing two orders one passed by the Government under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act and communicated to the Sub-divisional Officer, Gopalganj, on 20-2-1954, and the other passed by the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, whereby he has started, a certificate case No. 331 of 1953-54 for the recovery of Rs. 23,790/1/3 against the Directors of Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd.

2. The dispute giving rise to the present application is in substance the outcome of some difference between the parties over the interpretation of an award dated 26-9-1950, given under -the Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947) by the Industrial Tribunal of which the Honble Mr. Justice B. P. Sinha (as he then was) was the sole member.

3. It appears that in the early part of the year 1950 some dispute arose between the employers and workmen of the petitioner company Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd. For the adjudication of that dispute the Government under Section 7, Indus- trial Disputes Act by an order dated 6-2-1950, constituted an Industrial Tribunal with Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Sinha (as he then was) as its sole member, and under Section 10 of the Act referred to that Tribunal a number of points for adjudication. One of the points referred to it, which has given rise to the present application, was : "The retaining allowance for the off-season to be paid if any". The award, given by the Tribunal on 25-9-1950, was published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, on 5-10-1950. The finding given therein on the issue of retaining allowance was to the effect that the skilled workmen and clerks should get at the rate of 50 per cent, of their wages during the off-season and semi-skilled ones at the rate of 25 per cent. thereof. A list was also given in the award classifying therein broadly the skilled and semi-skilled jobs with a note attached thereto in the following words :

"It should be noted that the list given above of skilled and semi-skilled jobs is illustrative of the nature of the work done, and not exhaustive of the description, that is to say, irrespective of the description, or nomenclature given by particular factories to their workmen, it is the job, and not the description attaching to it, which will determine the question of whether the particular man is or is not entitled to retaining allowance."

Against the award, an appeal was taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India under Section 7, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1950. The main controversy in appeal between the parties on the point of retaining allowance was as to who among the workmen was to be considered as skilled and semi-skilled labour and as such entitled to get retaining allowance. The Appellate Tribunal on hearing the parties gave its decision on 7-3-1951 which was published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 26-3-1951. Therein it held : "We think that we should maintain the list given in the award".

4. It appears from the counter-affidavit sworn by opposite party No. 4, the Secretary of the Sasamusa Sugar Workers Union, that while the matter was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, a conciliation proceeding for the settlement of the difference over the award had also started on 3-3-1951 and it was decided therein that the Commissioner of Labour would issue clarification of the award, if necessary, after the order of the Appellate Tribunal had been given and in the meantime the parties were advised to discuss the matter between themselves and to come to a settlement as far as practicable. Unfortunately, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal did not smooth down their difference and, therefore, in accordance with the agreement arrived at in the conciliation proceeding held on 3-3-1951, the parties by an agreement dated 23-1-1952, which forms Annexure 2 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4, agreed that the Labour Officer, Muzaffarpur, would hold an investigation into the nature of duties of different workmen and make his recommendation to the Labour Commissioner by the end of January, 1952, and on the receipt of his report the management would be asked to pay workmen in the light of that report.

The Labour Officer, Muzaffarpur, accordingly enquired into the matter and submitted his report to the Labour Commissioner, and on the basis of that report a letter dated 4-4-1952, was sent to the petitioner from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour communicating therein that "The Labour Commissioner has accepted the said report and has directed that the management should pay the retaining allowance as recommended by the Labour Officer. The Labour Commissioner has further directed that such payment should be made within a week from the date of the receipt of this letter".

Unfortunately, none of the parties was satisfied with the report submitted by the Labour Officer and, therefore, a protest petition was filed by both of them. On those protest petitions the Labour Commissioner by his letter dated 19-5-1952, directed the parties to place all materials before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, and to satisfy him that retaining allowance had been paid to all the categories of workmen in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal and to abide by his directions in the matter,

In pursuance of this direction the Assistant Labour Commissioner held an enquiry into the matter and on enquiry directed the payment of retaining allowance to some categories of the workmen about whom there was difference of opinion between the parties in the light of the decision, given in the award. It is claimed by the petitioner that the instructions given to it by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the close of his enquiry were fully carried out by it and thus the conciliation proceeding initiated between the parties over the question of retaining allowance in terms of the award of the Tribunal had exhausted itself out. It is further alleged that in the meantime the petitioner had given a notice as well on 14-4-1952, under Section 19(6), Industrial Disputes Act, conveying its decision therein to terminate the award as a result whereof it is alleged the award under law terminated after two months from that date.

5. The grievance of the petitioner in this application on this part of the case is that thereafter the Labour Commissioner without any authority by his letter issued from his office on 21-2- 1953, ordered the petitioner to make payment of retaining allowance to some additional categories of workmen and subsequently sent a reminder on 29-4-1953, communicating therein

"The workmen concerned have applied for recovery of the amount due under certificate procedure in accordance with Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. You are, therefore, advised once again to make payment of the retaining allowance due to all workmen in accordance with the abovementioned letter immediately".

The directions given in these two letters were, it is said, challenged by the petitioner and it categorically denied to accept the eligibility of the new categories of workmen set up by the Labour Commissioner for payment of retaining allowance and also questioned his authority to give such direction.

6. On the protest made by the petitioner, it appears, the State Government, according to the allegation of the petitioner, at the instance of the Labour Commissioner, and according to the opposite party No. 4 on an application filed by the workers on 25-5-1953, sanctioned the institution of a proceeding under Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for the recovery of retaining allowance payable to the additional categories of workmen in accordance with the finding of the Labour Commissioner and issued a letter on 20-2-1954, to the Sub-divisional Officer, Gopalganj, directing him to file the necessary certificate of public demand in the office of the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, and to make a request that early steps should be taken to realise the amount from the Directors of the Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd.

In pursuance of this letter, it appears, the Sub-divisional Officer of Gopalganj, filed the necessary certificate form in the office of the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, who, on its receipt, filed it in his office under Section 4, Public Demands Recovery Act and subsequently started a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioner. That proceeding is still pending for disposal and in the course of that proceeding notice under Section 7, Public Demands Recovery Act has been served on the petitioner on 4-3-1954. The case of the petitioner is that the certificate case started against it on the basis of the order passed by the Government under Section 20(1), Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, is invalid in law, for no money either found due by a conciliation officer in a conciliation proceeding or found due on an interpretation and application by a workman or the Government of a principle given in the award is recoverable under Section 20(1) of the said Act.

7. On these allegations the present application has been now filed in this Court by the petitioner for the issue of writs and directions as stated above. It may be noted here that the present application was sworn on 18-2-1954, and as the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceeding taken against it under the Public Demands Recovery Act at any time before 4-3-1954, when notice thereof under Section 7 was served on it, no reference of the proceeding, it is said, could be made in the original application, and, therefore, on the service of the notice under the Public Demands Recovery Act, supplementary affidavits were filed in the case by the petitioner praying therein to quash the order passed by the Certificate Officer whereby he has started a case under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioner and also to make the Certificate Officer ft party therein.

8. Cause has been shown in the case by the Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Bihar, the Commissioner of Labour, Bihar, the Collector of Saran, Chapra, and the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, and by Mr. Tara Kishore Prasad, on behalf of Mohammad Shamsuddin, Secretary, Sasamusa Workers Union.

9. The learned Government Pleader contended that the orders dated 21-2-1953 and 29-4-1953, were passed by the Labour Commissioner in the course of the conciliation proceeding held on the basis of the agreement dated 23-1-1952, and, there fore, the Labour Commissioner had the necessary authority in law to pass the orders on 21-2-1953, and 29-4-1953, and the orders passed on those dates were valid and legal.

10. His next contention was that the order passed by the Government under Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for the recovery of the retaining allowance payable to the additional categories of workmen was on the basis of the application submitted to it by the workmen of the Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd., and the same was valid and legal. He supported the order firstly on the ground that the money found due by the Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proceeding could also be directed by the Government to be recovered under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act and secondly that in any case the money which the Government has under its order directed to be recovered under Section 20 of the Act is the money claimed to be due by the workers under the award dated 26-9-1950. In this view of the matter he submitted that the validity of the proceeding started against the petitioner for the realisation of the due is not open to any question.

11. Mr. Tara Kishore Prasad appearing for the Secretary of the Union has, however, in his argument conceded that the money found due by the Labour Commissioner under his orders dated 21-2-1953, and 29-4-1953, passed by him in the conciliation proceeding started on the basis of the agreement dated 23-1-1952, cannot in law be recovered under Section .20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. He also did not support the validity of the order passed by the Labour Commissioner on the basis of the agreement dated 23-1-1952. His only contention was that the order passed by the Government under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act was not for the money found due in the conciliation proceeding but for the money claimed to be due by the workmen under the award of 26-9-1950, and as such the order passed by the Government under Section 20 is valid and legal and accordingly the proceeding started on the basis of that order under the Public Demands Recovery Act by the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, is to accordance with law.

12. On the contentions raised in this case, the following four points arise for consideration :

1. Whether the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner on 21-2-1953 and 29-4-1953 were within the authority conferred on him by law.

(2) Whether the Government under Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, can pass an order for the recovery of money found due from the employers by the Labour Commissioner to a conciliation proceeding.

(3) Whether Government can exercise powers under Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for the recovery of a due under an award wherein it is neither shown as a determinate sum nor as payable to a determinate person. (4) Whether the proceeding started by the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj, under the Public Demands Recovery Act, against the petitioner is valid in law in case it is found that the due thereunder cannot be realised by the order of the Government in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. "

13. I take up these questions one by one.

14. In the course of the argument on the first point a subsidiary point was also raised by the petitioner that the conciliation proceeding based on the agreement dated 23-1-1952, had after the decision given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner exhausted itself and there was no proceeding left thereafter wherein any decision could be given by the Labour Commissioner. I think it is not necessary to decide this point. Even if it be accepted for the sake of argument, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, that the conciliation proceeding based on the agreement dated 23-1-1952, remained pending before the Labour Commissioner even after the decision given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and even after the satisfaction of the claims by the petitioner on the basis of that decision, this much is clear that the Labour Commissioner in that conciliation proceeding had no authority in law to pass any final order of the nature of those made by him on 21-2-1953, and 29-4-1953. The powers and duties of a conciliation officer are given in Section 12, Industrial Disputes Act 1947. That section reads:

"(1) Where any Industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner.

(2) The conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.

(3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate Government together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.

(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute & for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circum stances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at

(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in Sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board or Tribunal, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.

(6) A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government."

This section obviously contemplates that what is referred to a conciliation officer to be decided in a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is an industrial dispute. In this view of the matter, the very argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader presupposes that the controversy between the parties over the interpretation of the award of 26-9-1950, regarding its application to the different categories of workmen was taken by the parties as an industrial dispute, and it was, therefore, agreed between them to be referred to the Labour Commissioner to be decided by him as a conciliation officer in a conciliation proceeding.

This aspect of the question finds support also from the definition of the phrase industrial dispute given in Clause (k) of Section 2, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That reads --"industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person."

In this case, therefore, there was a dispute between the employers and workmen, as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act, over the interpretation of the award as to whether it did or did not apply in the case of particular categories of workmen. That being so, all that the Labour Commissioner under Section 12, Industrial Disputes Act could do was to induce the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement on the matter. On his success in the attempt what he could do under Sub-section (3) of Section 12, Industrial Disputes Act was to send a report thereof to the Government together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.

It is admitted in this case that though the parties had agreed to appoint the Labour Commissioner as the conciliation officer no settlement could be arrived at before the Labour Commissioner in the course of the conciliation proceeding and even if there was any that was not before him but before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which had already been acted upon by the parties and thus it had exhausted itself. If, therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is accepted that even after the decision given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner the conciliation proceeding still remained pending before the Labour Commissioner, this much is to be held that as no settlement thereafter was arrived at between the parties before the Labour Commissioner in that proceeding, he had no option under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 but to send to the Government only a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at. And in any case in the absence of the settlement before him he had no authority under law to pass a final order of the type said to have been given by him in the letters issued from his office on 21-2-1953 and 29-4-1953. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 12, Industrial Disputes Act 1947 say that on receipt of the report submitted to the Government under Sub-section (4) of the section, it was for the Government to decide as to whether the case should be referred to a Board or Tribunal for a decision. It does not provide for a final decision to be given by the conciliation officer even when a settlement is arrived at between the parties and much less when no settlement is arrived at between them. In either case he has only to report the matter to the Government. For these reasons, I hold that the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner on 21-2-1953, and 29-4-1953, in a conciliation proceeding said to be based on the agreement dated 23-1-1952, are without jurisdiction.