Shri Om Prakash vs Government Of Nct And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2821 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        +   W.P.(C.) No. 8520/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 24th July, 2009


# SHRI OM PRAKASH                          ..... PETITIONER
!             Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate.

                                  VERSUS

$ GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. & OTHERS            .....RESPONDENTS

^           Through: Mr. N.K. Jha, Advocate for the
                       respondent nos.1 & 2.
                       None for respondent no.3

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The petitioner, Shri Om Prakash, has filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of

mandamus to respondent nos. 1 & 2 (District Collector (East) and Labour-

cum-Conciliation Officer in GNCT of Delhi) to perform their statutory

duties to secure the implementation of the award dated 05.05.2000

passed in his favour by the Labour Court No. I in ID No. 136/1996. The

petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to perform the statutory duties to secure the implementation of the award dated 05.05.2000 passed by the Labour Court No. I in I.D. No. 136/1996;

(ii) Issue a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent Nos. 1 to implement and execute the Recovery Certificate dated 20.08.2002 issued

by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 33-C(1) of the the Industrial Disputes Act (Annexure P-4);

(iii) Issue a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent No. 2 to initiate prosecution of the Respondent No. 3 under Section 29 r/w Section 25 T and U of the the Industrial Disputes Act;

(iv) Impose exemplary costs upon the Respondents for its inaction.

(v) Issue any other writ or order or direction that may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard.

3. The ex parte award dated 05.05.2000 in ID No. 136/1996 was

passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in favour of the petitioner whereby

he was directed to be reinstated by the management of M/s. Asha Metals

(respondent no. 3 herein). This award has remained unimplemented till

date.

4. The award of reinstatement was to be implemented by respondent

no. 3 being the management of the petitioner. It is contended that the

Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer (respondent no. 2) has failed to initiate

appropriate proceedings under Section 29 read with Section 25 U and T

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is alleged to be unfair labour

practice under the law.

5. The recovery certificate pursuant to award dated 05.05.2000 in ID

No. 136/1996 was issued by the GNCT of Delhi on 20.08.2002, a typed

copy of which is at page 17 of the Paper Book. The grievance of the

petitioner in this petition is that the respondents no. 1 & 2 who are the

authorities responsible for executing the recovery certificate have not

performed their statutory duties as the said recovery certificate has

remained unexecuted till date. Further grievance of the petitioner is that

in case the recovery certificate dated 20.08.2002 could not be executed

then it was the duty of respondent nos. 1 & 2 to initiate proceedings for

the prosecution of the management and since the respondent nos. 1 & 2

have failed either to execute the recovery certificate or initiate

prosecution proceedings against the management, it is alleged that they

have not performed their statutory duties cast upon them under the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above argument

advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the facts that are

available on record. I do not find any violation of statutory duties on the

part of respondent nos. 1 & 2. It is not the case of the petitioner that he

had furnished the details of movable or immovable assets of the

management through which the recovery certificate dated 20.08.2002

could have been executed by the concerned authorities in the

Government of NCT of Delhi. Any recovery to which a workman is

entitled pursuant to an award passed in his favour by the Industrial

Adjudicator, can be made by taking recourse to the procedure followed

for recovery of arrears of land revenue. This is as per the provisions of

Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as

under :-

"33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of [Chapter VA or Chapter VB] the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:

Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the

money became due to the workman from the employer:

Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period."

7. Arrears of land revenue are recovered by attachment of land which

is subject to levy. In case of land subject to levy, the land is readily

available for attachment and the arrears of land revenue can be

recovered by attaching and selling the land subject to levy. However, in

case of an industrial award by the Industrial Adjudicator in favour of the

workman, the recovery to which a workman is entitled under the award

cannot be made even after issuance of recovery certificate unless the

details of movable and immovable assets owned by the management is

made known to the concerned authorities responsible for execution of

the recovery certificate. In case the workman supplies the details of

movable and immovable assets of the management and if still the

concerned authorities responsible for execution of the award do not take

steps for effecting recovery then certainly they are guilty of not

performing their statutory duties cast upon them under Section 33(c) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The prosecution of the management

for non-compliance of the award can be initiated only in case if the

complete particulars with address of the management are given by the

workman to the concerned authorities responsible for execution of the

recovery certificate.

8. In the present case, the petitioner nowhere states that he had

given either the complete particulars with the address of the

management or the details of the movable and immovable assets owned

by the management to the concerned authorities of the Government of

NCT of Delhi who were responsible for executing the recovery certificate

dated 20.08.2002. Therefore, prayer made by the petitioner in this

petition cannot be granted. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner

to furnish the complete particulars of the management and the details of

its assets to the concerned authorities as early as possible and in case

the details in this regard are provided by the workman, then the

respondent nos. 1 & 2 are directed to take steps for execution of the

recovery certificate dated 20.08.2002 as expeditiously as possible

preferably within eight weeks of receipt of details from the petitioner.

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

JULY 24, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'