Shri D.R. Chhatwani vs Assistant Collector And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2643 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 8357/2007

%                       Date of Decision: 15th July, 2009


# Shri D.R. Chhatwani                                  ..... Petitioner
!          Through: Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate.

                                  Versus

$ Assistant Collector & Ors.                    .....Respondents

^          Through: Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner Shri D.R. Chhatwani has filed this writ petition under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an

appropriate writ, order or directions to respondent No. 1 not to effect any

recovery against him on the basis of recovery notice (Annexure P-1 of the

petition). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned

recovery certificates issued by respondents No. 1 & 2 against him so that

no recovery can be made against him.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant for decision of this writ petition

are that the Labour Court vide its award dated 05.03.2001 had directed

respondent No. 6 firm to reinstate the services of respondents No. 3 to 5

with continuity of service and full back wages. This award was against

respondent No. 6, as respondents No. 3 to 5 being the workmen, were its

employees. It seems that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have issued

impugned recovery certificate, being Annexure P-1 to the petition,

pursuant to above-mentioned award and seek to effect recovery to which

the workmen are entitled against the petitioner.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has no

connection of any kind with the respondent No. 6 firm and, therefore,

according to him, the award dated 05.03.2001 in favour of respondents

No. 3 to 5 cannot be enforced against him. This specific stand taken by

the petitioner in his writ petition has been admitted by respondent No. 6

in para 3 of reply on merits in its counter-affidavit.

4. Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No. 6 submits that his client admits that petitioner has no connection

with respondent No. 6 against whom award in favour of respondents No.

3 to 5 was passed. He says that he has no objection in case this writ

petition is allowed. It may be noted that respondents No. 3 to 5 in whose

favour the award was passed by the Labour Court have not appeared in

response to notice of this writ petition despite service of notice on them,

for reasons best known to them.

5. Under the circumstances, I am left with no option but to allow this

writ petition. The impugned recovery certificate, being Annexure P-1 to

the petition, is quashed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed

that no recovery pursuant to award dated 05.03.2001 in ID No. 322/1998

be made from the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

July 15, 2009                                     S.N.AGGARWAL
bsr                                                  [JUDGE]