The General Manager Ashok Hotel vs The Assistant Collector And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2878 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        +   W.P.(C.) No. 6863/2005

%                  Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009


# THE GENERAL MANAGER, ASHOK HOTEL         ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Mr. V.K. Rao, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ THE ASSTT. COLLECTOR & OTHERS              .....RESPONDENTS

^              Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
                        Mr. S.S. Upadhyaya, Authorised

                        Union

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 management of Ashok Hotel (petitioner herein), in this writ

petition, seeks setting aside of impugned recovery certificate dated

23.02.2005 (Annexure P-12 at page 59 of the Paper Book) issued by the

Assistant Collector pursuant to award dated 24.08.2002 in ID No.

241/96/98 directing the petitioner to pay the difference of pay in the pay

of Helpers and that of Technician Grade-III to two of its workmen namely

Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh.

2. Mr. V.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

says that he has instructions from his client for not pressing this writ

petition but seeks liberty to recover the excess payment, if any, made to

the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh from their future salary.

3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh have been

paid excess amount of Rs. 1,04,671/- which was not due to them in terms

of award of the Industrial Adjudicator dated 24.08.2002 in I.D. No.

241/96/98 and, therefore, request is made for allowing the petitioner to

recover this excess amount from the future salary or the above-named

workmen. However, Mr. S.S. Upadhyaya, authorised representative of

respondent No. 3 union, says that no excess payment has been made to

the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh and, therefore, according

to him, question of recovery does not arise.

4. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution, will not go into the disputed questions of fact as to what

payment was actually due to the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr.

Rajesh in terms of award dated 24.08.2002 and as to whether they have

been paid excess payment or not, because the parties can take

appropriate proceedings for the same as per law. Hence, directions for

recovery of excess payment, if any, made by the petitioner's counsel

cannot be given in this writ petition. However, the petitioner can recover

the excess payment, if any, from the workmen in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of as not pressed

by petitioner's counsel. All miscellaneous applications also stand

disposed of as not pressed.

JULY 28, 2009                                     S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'