Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. And ... on 19 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240517
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22691 of 2017
Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondent nos.1 and 3 to 7.
2. The present petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:-
"i. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by respondent no.5 (Annexure No.1).
ii. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.5 to 7 to recover the amount, from the respondent no.2, as directed by the respondent no.1 through its recovery certificate dated 26.12.2015 (Annexure no.7)."
3. It is the case of petitioner that in pursuance of the judgment dated 10.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.5674 of 2007, recovery certificate has already been issued for recovery of the amount determined by the Labour Court while passing award in favour of petitioner. A restoration application has been preferred on behalf of respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5674 of 2007 for seeking recall of the order dated 10.01.2013, during pendency of restoration application, recovery certificate has been issued and proceedings for recovery of the awarded amount has been initiated, at the behest of respondent no.2, it has been informed to the revenue authorities that during pendency of restoration application preferred on behalf of respondent no.2, proceedings for recovery initiated at the behest of award, may be kept in abeyance. Respondent no.5 directed respondent no.6 not to initiate in pursuance of the recovery certificate till the pendency of Writ Petition No.5674 of 2007 vide order dated 23.02.2016 which impugned the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the order dated 23.02.2016 raised his arguments that respondent no.5 is not competent to pass any order in the nature of direction to kept in abeyance the recovery proceedings since there was hardly any order passed by this Court to stay the effect and operation of the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance of the award extended in favour of petitioner.
5. The grounds mentioned in the writ petition, have been properly rebutted in shape of filing counter affidavit, wherein same stand has been taken by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by respondent no.5 is justified since the adjudication over restoration application preferred on behalf of respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5674 of 2007 was pending to be finally adjudicated and as such, during pendency of the same, recovery proceedings whatsoever has been initiated by respondent nos.3 to 7, will be of no use, if in case, the restoration application preferred by respondent no.2 will be allowed by this Court.
6. In the latest event, restoration application preferred on behalf of respondent no.2 has already been dismissed and as such, order dated 23.02.2016 is also goes of without quashing the same.
7. In view thereof, respondent nos.3 to 7 are hereby directed to proceed with the recovery certificate in pursuance of the citation issued by respondent no.6 along with interest, however it is made clear that the amount so recovered in favour of petitioner in pursuance of the award dated 02.08.2006, will be extended in favour of legal heirs of petitioner who have been incorporated as petitioner nos.1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 in equal share.
8. The abovementioned exercise with regard to recovery shall be finalized by revenue authorities as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
Vivek Kr.
