Order B P. Singh & P.K. Sarkar, JJ. The petitioner, M/s National Jute Manufacturers corporation Limited has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order of the respondent Presiding officer, Labour Court, Patna dated 1.8.1986 computing the wages payable to the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By its impugned order the Labour court has held that M/s R.B.H.M. Jute Mills Private Limited, the erstwhile employer is liable to pay to the concerned workman (respondent no a sum of Rs.57,191/-by way of arrears of wages and of emoluments for the period 21.10.1974 to 20.12.1980. It has further held the petitioner Corporation liable to pay to the concerned workmen (respondent no. 2) the wages for the period 21.12.1980 to 31.12.1981 amounting to Rs.12,602/- The petitioner- Corporation has been held liable for payment of wages to the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) for the period subsequent to the take over of the undertaking under the provisions of the Jute companies (Nationalisation) Act. 1980 (hereinafter to as "the Nationalisation Act") 2. Few facts, not in dispute, may be noticed. The concerned workman (respondent no.2) was employed as time keeper in the R.B.H.M. Jute Mills. Katihar. His services were terminated on 1.8.1968 which gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Muzaffarpura being Reference No. 8 of 1969. By its award dated 29.6.1970 the Labour Court held that the termination of the employment of the workman was illegal and consequently it directed re-instatement of the workman (respondent no. 2) on half pay and other emoluments for the period during which he was kept out of the employment. The Management challenged the said award before this court by filing a writ petition, which vas dismissed on 21.11.1972. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 2.2.1973. Despite the Dismissal of the writ petition, and despite the award made in favour of the concerned workman (respondent no. 2), the workman was not permitted to join his duties. Thereafter the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) filed Mtsc. Case No. 1/75 for computing the amount payable to him by way of arrears of wages under section 33-C (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That application was allowed and the Labour Court computed the amount payable to the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) at Rs.20, 173.30 Paise. Thereafter the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) filed Mtsc. Case No. 1/75 for computing the amount payable to him by way of arrears of wages under section 33-C (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That application was allowed and the Labour Court computed the amount payable to the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) at Rs.20, 173.30 Paise. 3. The grievance of the workman (respondent no. 2) is that despite the award of the Labour Court, and despite the order passed in the miscellaneous case, he was not permitted to join his duties nor was he paid any amount by the erstwhile Management, The respondent no. 2 ran from piller to post and in the meantime the undertaking of M/S R.B.H.M. Jute Mills stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under the provision of Section 3 of the Nationalisation Act. The said Nationalisation Act follows more or less same pattern as the other Nationalisation Acts and Section 7 of the said Act provides that every jute company shall be given by the Central Government, for the transfer to and vesting in that Government under section 3 of the undertakings of that company and right title and interest of that company in relation to its undertakings, in cash and in the manner specified in Chapter VI, such amount as is specified against the Dame of that company in the First Schedule. It appears from the First schedule that R.B.H.M. Jute Mills Private Limited, Katihar, of which the respondent no. 2 was an employee, was given a sum of Rs.1704 Lakhs under Section 7 of the Nationalisation Act. Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act provides as follows: "12. Continuance of employees-(1) Every person who has been, immediately before the appointed day, employed in any undertaking of any of the jute companies shall become, (a) on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government, and (b) where the undertakings of the jute companies are vested in the Jute Manufactures Corporation, an employee of the said Corporation, on and from the date of such vesting. and shall hold office or service under the Central Government of the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be, with the same rights and privileges &s to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if there had been no such vesting and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment under the Central Government or the Jute manufactures Corporation, as the case may be, is duly terminated or until his remuneration and other conditions of service are duly altered by the Central Government or the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, or in any other law for the time being in force, the transfer of the services of any officer or other person employed in any undertaking of the Jute Manufactures Corporation, shall not entitle such officer or other employee to any compensation under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no such claim shall be entertained by any court tribunal or other authority." 4. Since the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) was neither paid any amount nor was taken back in employment by the petitioner-Corporation after take over, he filed an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The earlier claim related to the period 1.10.1974 to 31.12.1976 which was registered as Misc. Case No.5 of 1977 and the latter claim related to the period 1.1.1977 to 31.12.1981 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 29 of 1982. It also appears from the order of the Labour Court that the Petitioner-Corporation was made party in the said reference by order dated 5.11.1981. The erstwhile employer of the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) who was also a party in them proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, did not file any written statement nor did it contest the case. After hearing the parties the Labour Court passed the impugned order holding that the erstwhile employer (R.B.H.M. Jute Mills private Limited) was liable to pay the arrear of wages to concerned workman respen4cnt no. 2) for the period prior to the take over and that petitioner Corporation was liable to pay the arrears of wages to the respondent no. After hearing the parties the Labour Court passed the impugned order holding that the erstwhile employer (R.B.H.M. Jute Mills private Limited) was liable to pay the arrear of wages to concerned workman respen4cnt no. 2) for the period prior to the take over and that petitioner Corporation was liable to pay the arrears of wages to the respondent no. 2 for the period subsequent to the take over, i.e. from 21.12.1980 to 31.12.1981, 21.12.1980 being the date of take over. 5. It is not disputed before us that an award was made by the Labour Court as early as in the year 1970, by which the respondent no.2 was directed to be re-instated with half pay. The mere fact that the erstwhile Management prevented the respondent no. 2 from joining his duties and refused to pay him the wages due to him, did not amount to a termination of employment of respondent no. 2, and be in law continued to be an employee to the erstwhile Management and he took steps under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to get his arrears of wages computed, It is not as if the respondent no. 2 at any stage abandoned his claim. Three successive applications were made for computation of the amounts payable to the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) when the erstwhile Management failed to comply with the award of the Labour Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the erstwhile Management was liable to pay to respondent no. 2 the arrears of wages due to him, being an employee under the erstwhile Management. 6. The counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation has submitted that so far as the past liability is concerned, that is the liability of the erstwhile Management for payment of arrears of wages for the period prior to take over, and the respondent no. 2 may claim payment of the amount found due from the Commissioner of Payments under Chapter VI of the Nationalisation Act. The question is whether the petitioner Corporation, which is the successor Corporation, in view of the take over under the Nationalisation Act, is liable to pay the wages to the concerned workman subsequent to the take over. 7. 2 may claim payment of the amount found due from the Commissioner of Payments under Chapter VI of the Nationalisation Act. The question is whether the petitioner Corporation, which is the successor Corporation, in view of the take over under the Nationalisation Act, is liable to pay the wages to the concerned workman subsequent to the take over. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act which provides for continuance of the employees, contemplates that every person who has been, immediately before the appointed day employed in any undertaking of any of the jute companies taken over shall hold office or service under the Central Government or the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be, with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other maters as would have been admissible to him if there had been no such vesting, and shall Continue to do so unless and until his employment under the Central Government or the Jute Manufacture Corporation the case may be, is duly terminated, or unite his remuneration and other conditions of service are duly altered by the Central Government or the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be. He submitted that so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, he was not an employee, who immediately before the appointed day was an employee in the undertaking taken over under the Nationalisation Act. He submitted that respondent no. 2 had not been paid his wages by the erstwhile Management and was not on the rolls of the undertaking. He cannot, therefore, be considered to be a person who, immediately before the appointed day, was an employee of the taken over undertaking. He has further submitted that unlike the provisions in the Coking Coles mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, where every person who was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was deemed to be a workman, there is no reference to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Section 12 of the Nationalisation. Act, 1980 Consequently the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Workman Vs. Act, 1980 Consequently the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Workman Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (1976 LIC 709) will not apply in this case, since the Court held that in view of the definition of "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, any person employed in any industry, who had been dismissed and whose dismissal had led to a dispute, was considered to be a workman. 8. In our view even if Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act does not refer to a workman by reference to the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, that will not make much difference in deciding the questions involved in this case. Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act, 1980 does not deal with continuance of the employment of the workmen only. It deals with all the employees and necessarily includes the workmen as well as the officer s and other members of the staff who may not be the workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The test to be applied is whether the employee concerned immediately before the appointed day could be said to be an employee in the taken over undertaking. 9. In the instant case the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) admittedly was an employee of the undertaking under the erstwhile Management till his employment was terminated by an order passed on 1.8.1958 by the said Management. An industrial dispute having arisen, the Labour Court gave its award on 29.6.1970 declaring that the termination of the concerned workman (respondent 2) was Illegal and that he should be reinstated and be paid half pay and other emoluments for the period he was kept out of the employment. The consequence of the award was that the order of termination lost its force and the respondent no. 2 for all purposes continued as the employee of the erstwhile undertaking. Such employment could be terminated subsequently by the Management in accordance with law of could be brought to an end by voluntary retirement of the concerned workman by resigning his office. The employment could also come to an and after superannuation of the concerned employee or upon his death. Such employment could be terminated subsequently by the Management in accordance with law of could be brought to an end by voluntary retirement of the concerned workman by resigning his office. The employment could also come to an and after superannuation of the concerned employee or upon his death. Since no such event took place, the concerned workman continued to be an employee of the taken over undertaking, even if the Management illegally prevented him from joining his duties and did not pay him the wages due to him in accordance with the award and the law. This position continued till 20.12.1980 and therefore, as on 20.12.1980 the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) continued to be an employee of M/S R.B.H.M. Jute Mills, Private Limited Katihar. If he was an employee of M/S R.B.H.M. Jute Mills Katihar on 20.12.1980 and the said Jute Mill was taken over under the Nationalisation Act by force of Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act on 21.12.80, he became an employee of the Central Government, or the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be, and was entitled to hold service with same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matter s as would have been admissible to him if there lad been no such vesting, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment under the Central Government or the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be, is duly terminated or until his remuneration and other conditions of service are duly altered. 10. In our view it cannot be urged that since the award of the labour Court was not implemented by the erstwhile Management the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) ceased to be an employee of the erstwhile Management. Despite non-implementation of the award of the Labour Court, under the law, the relationship of master and servant continued. It subsisted till such time as it was brought to an end in accordance with law or by operation of the law. We have, therefore, no doubt that respondent no. 2 was, immediately before the appointed day, an employee in the undertaking taken over under the Nationalisation Act and, therefore, on and from the appointed day he became an employee of the Jute Manufactures Corporation to which the undertaking of the Jute Company was transferred and stood vested. 11. We have, therefore, no doubt that respondent no. 2 was, immediately before the appointed day, an employee in the undertaking taken over under the Nationalisation Act and, therefore, on and from the appointed day he became an employee of the Jute Manufactures Corporation to which the undertaking of the Jute Company was transferred and stood vested. 11. The counsel for the petitioner-Corporation placed considerable reliance on clause (c) of Section 5 of the Nationalisation Act and submitted that no liability incurred by any Jute Company before the appointed day for the contravention of a provision of any law for the time being in force shall be enforceable against the Central Government, or where the undertakings of such company are directed under Section 6 of this Act to vest in the Jute Manufactures Corporation, against that Corporation. It was submitted that since the award of the Labour Court was not implemented, there was contravention of the Industrial Disputes Act and any liability arising there from cannot be enforced against the petitioner-Corporation. This submission is misconceived, because it proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the liability to pay the arrears of wages arises on account of non-implementation of the award of the Labour Court. The liability to pay wages arises on account of the declaration that the termination of employment was illegal and relationship of master and servant subsisted with the consequential liability of the employee to pay wages to the concerned workman. The liability as envisages in clause (c) of Section 5 of Nationalisation Act is the liability incurred for contravention of a provision of any law. In the instant case it is submitted that by not complying with the award of the Labour court the erstwhile Management incurred a liability. But the liability which the erstwhile Management incurred was a liability under Section 29 of the Intestinal Disputes Act, which made the Management liable for prosecution which could result in sentence of imprisonment or imposition of fine. Such a liability is not sought to be enforced against the petitioner Corporation. In the instant Case, therefore, reliance placed on Section 5 (3) (c) of the Nationalisation Act is misconceived. 12. It was then submitted that the petitioner Corporation cannot be held liable to pay wages to respondent no. 2, who never approached the petitioner- Corporation for employment or for payment of the wages. In the instant Case, therefore, reliance placed on Section 5 (3) (c) of the Nationalisation Act is misconceived. 12. It was then submitted that the petitioner Corporation cannot be held liable to pay wages to respondent no. 2, who never approached the petitioner- Corporation for employment or for payment of the wages. This submission is refuted by the counsel for respondent no. 2 who states that the respondent no. 2 was running from pillar to post secure his employment and for payment of arrears of wages. It is not disputed that the petitioner. Corporation was made a party in the proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has not been able to satisfy us that any such plea was urged before the labour court. If the claim made by the workman (respondent no. 2) were to be defeated on any plea 8vililabJe to the petitioner Corporation it was for the petitioner Corporation to raise such plea before the labour Court. The plea is essentially a plea of fact and such a plea cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time before this Court in writ jurisdiction, where a writ of certiorari is prayed for. This court cannot hold that a judicial tribunal erred in exercise of its jurisdiction in not considering a factual controversy which was never raised before it. There is, therefore, no ground to hold that the petitioner Corporation is not liable to pay the wages to the concerned workman (respondent no. 2) for the period subsequent to the take over, i.e. for the period 21.12.1980 to 31.12.1981. The Labour Court has rightly held that for the period prior to 21.12.1980 the liability is that of the erstwhile Management. The provisions of the said Nationalisation Act also make it clear that the concerned workman may make a claim before the Commissioner of payments since the second Schedule to the said Act includes employees Clues on account of unpaid salaries, wages, provident fund, etc. 13. In view of the discussions above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is; accordingly dismissed. CWJC 1414/87 In this writ petition preferred by the concerned workman (Sri Udaivan Tiwari) it has been proved that the impugned order of the Labour Court be modified and it be directed that the amount computed by the Labour Court in Misc. CWJC 1414/87 In this writ petition preferred by the concerned workman (Sri Udaivan Tiwari) it has been proved that the impugned order of the Labour Court be modified and it be directed that the amount computed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1977 and 29 of 1982 payable to the petitioner workman, be recovered by the State of Bihar from respondent no. 3 the Corporation for payment to the petitioner concerned workman. Such plea was not urged before the Labour Court and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this plea at this state. However, we find from the provisions of the said Nationalisation Act that the liabilities of M/s National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited (respondent no. 3) to pay wages to its workman, who are continuing in employment, commence from the date of takeover, and the liability for payment of the wages for the period prior to the date of take over is of the erstwhile Management under which the concerned workman (petitioner) was an employee. No doubt such liability has to he enforced by filing of a claim before the Commissioner of payments in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VI of the said Nationalisation Act such compensation is to be, paid out of the amount paid to the erstwhile Management, which is to be disbursed by the Commissioner of Payments in accordance with law We, therefore find no justification for directing the State of Bihar to collect any amount from the said Corporation (respondent no. 3) for payment to the petitioner concerned workman. Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed. In the circumstance, of the case there shall be no order as to Costs. Petitions Dismissed.