Delhi High Court
Shri Avdhesh Pandey vs Government Of Nct And Others on 24 July, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 8119/2009
% Date of Decision: 24th July, 2009
# SHRI AVDHESH PANDEY ..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. & OTHERS .....RESPONDENT
^ Through: Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate.
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 Avdesh Pandey, 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 and 4 to perform their statutory
duties to secure the implementation of the award dated 31.08.2002
passed in his favour by the Labour Court No. VIII in ID No. 139/1999.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this
petition are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent no. 3 as a
Press Man on monthly wages of Rs. 1700/- and was suddenly terminated
on 29.11.1998. He raised an industrial dispute in regard to his
termination which was registered as ID No. 139/1999 in which he
succeeded and the Industrial Adjudicator vide award dated 31.08.2002
directed his reinstatement with full back wages. Recovery certificate
dated 04.05.2006 pursuant to the above award was issued by the Labour
Department in the Government of NCT of Delhi and was sent to the
District Collector (South East), Kapashera, for execution. The said
recovery certificate remained unexecuted.
4. Later on, the petitioner informed the District Collector (South East),
Kapashera that the management has shifted its establishment from Delhi
to Gurgaon and gave the Gurgaon address of the management to the
District Collector (South East). In view of shifting by the management
from Delhi to Gurgaon, the recovery certificate was transferred by District
Collector (South East), Kapashera, Delhi for execution to the Deputy
Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana vide order dated 20.09.2007 which is
at page 21 of the Paper Book.
5. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioner says that his
client shall take steps for execution of the recovery certificate against the
management in Gurgaon as per law and he does not want to press this
writ petition in relation to recovery in terms of the recovery certificate
sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana. However, Mr.
Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
management has committed a default in not implementing the award in
question in the jurisdiction of the Court, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4
can at least initiate the prosecution against the management in Delhi
though it had shifted its business to Gurgaon. This submission made on
behalf of the petitioner appears to be legal and has to be accepted.
6. Ms. Latika Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 1 and 2 has very fairly submitted that her clients will take
necessary steps for initiating the prosecution against the management
within such time as may be granted to them by this Court.
7. In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by
counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with directions to
respondent nos. 1 & 2 to take required steps for initiating the prosecution
against the management (respondent no. 3) in terms of provisions
contained in Section 25 U and T read with Section 29 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight
weeks from today.
8. Order Dasti to counsel for both the parties under the signatures of
the Court Master.
JULY 24, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'
