Vinod Chand Sud vs Suresh Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2547 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 11th May, 2011.

+                           W.P.(C) 8366/2009

%        VINOD CHAND SUD                                       ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate.

                                     Versus

         SURESH KUMAR & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                    Through:              Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Advocate
                                          for R-1.
                                          Mr. V.K. Tandon, Addl. Stdg.
                                          Counsel for NCT for R-2&3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may               No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

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

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

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition has been filed impugning the recovery notice dated 20 th

March, 2009 issued by the respondent no.2 Dy. Commissioner (West)

Govt. of NCT of Delhi in execution of the Recovery Certificate issued by

the respondent no.3 Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in

implementation of the award dated 9th January, 2004 of the Industrial

Adjudicator on a dispute raised by the respondent no.1 workman against

the Management of M/s B.C. Sood, D-17, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. The

award holds the services of the respondent no.1 workman to have been

terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Management of M/s B.C.

Sood and directs the said Management of M/s B.C. Sood to reinstate the

respondent no.1 workman with continuity of service and full back wages.

2. The respondent no.1 workman applied to the respondent no.3

Labour Commissioner for implementation of the award. It appears that

since Shri B.C. Sood had died; the respondent no.1 workman sought

implementation of the award against the son of Shri B.C. Sood namely the

petitioner herein. The Labour Commissioner accordingly sent a notice

dated 6th September, 2007 to the petitioner asking the petitioner to appear

and explain as to why the award had not been implemented.

3. In response thereto the petitioner sent a letter dated 20 th September,

2007 to the Labour Commissioner stating that he was looking into the

matter and seeking time. The petitioner himself filed a further application

dated 24th March, 2009 before the Labour Commissioner through his

Advocate for adjournment and in which it was stated that the petitioner

will be arranging funds to pay the amount of `2,21,422/- demanded from

the petitioner in implementation of the award.

4. Upon the failure of the petitioner to pay the said amount, Recovery

Certificate was issued and in execution whereof the respondent no.2 Dy.

Commissioner (West) issued the notice to the petitioner asking the

petitioner to pay the amount and which notice is impugned in this petition.

The petitioner in the present petition has stated that the business of M/s

B.C. Sood was of his father Shri B.C. Sood and of his younger brother Shri

P.C. Sood and he had nothing to do with the same. He has thus contended

that monies if any due in the implementation of the award cannot be

recovered from him.

5. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner

depositing `2,21,450/- in this Court the recovery proceedings against the

petitioner stayed. The said amount is informed to have been deposited.

Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.

6. The counsel for the petitioner today states that he has not received

the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 and seeks time to rejoin

thereto.

7. It may however be noticed that the petitioner had failed to appear on

5th May, 2011 when the matter was listed last and finding that the

petitioner was enjoying the interim order in his favour the matter was kept

for today. In view of the facts aforesaid need is not felt to adjourn the

matter in as much as on the basis of the case of the petitioner himself he is

not found entitled to the relief.

8. Even if it were to be believed that the business of M/s. B.C. Sood

was of the father of the petitioner and his brother, the petitioner on the

demise of his father would be liable for the debts of his father. It is

nowhere the case of the petitioner that he has not inherited the estate of his

father and for this reason is not liable for the debts of the father. Moreover,

the petitioner in response to the notices of the Labour Commissioner did

not take the said stand and on the contrary assured that payment will be

made. Though the petitioner in this petition has sought to explain by

contending that his Advocate was not authorized to say so but there is no

plea of any action having been taken against the Advocate for having made

statement aforesaid in the application without instructions. Moreover the

petitioner in the letter sent under his own signatures also had not taken the

said plea. The petitioner has also given his address as of the same property

i.e. of D-17, Rajouri Garden, Delhi.

9. There is thus no merit in the petition.

10. The counsel for the respondent no.1 workman has stated that the

amount deposited in this Court will be received in full and final settlement

of the award and the respondent no.1 workman shall not take any further

steps for implementation of the award aforesaid or for recovery of any

further amounts.

11. The writ petition is dismissed. The amount deposited in this Court

together with interest accrued thereon be released forthwith to the

respondent no.1 workman.

Litigation expenses have already been paid.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 11, 2011 pp