Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 9363 Del

R-100
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Date of Decision: December 16, 2015

+     W.P. (C) 6444/2002

      DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION               ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Sarfarz Khan, Advocate

                    versus

      ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                  Through:            Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In pursuance to an Award of 24th May, 1996, respondent-workman had initiated recovery proceeding by way of an application of 8 th September, 1998 on which impugned Recovery Certificate of 19 th August, 2002 (Annexure P-7) had been issued. While entertaining this petition, operation of the impugned Recovery Notice was stayed.

At the final hearing of this petition, counsel for first respondent was telephonically informed about hearing of this petition for 15th December, 2015 but none had appeared on behalf of first respondent. Even yesterday, none had appeared on behalf of respondent-workman.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner drew attention of this

Court to respondent's application of 10th February, 1997 (Annexure P-2) seeking reinstatement in pursuance to the Award in question and in this application of 10th February, 1997 (Annexure P-2), petitioner gave up the claim for back wages in view of settlement arrived at between the parties. Attention of this Court was drawn to reinstatement order of 6 th March, 1997 (Annexure-4) whereby respondent-workman was put back in service in view of the settlement. It is so recorded in the order of 6 th March, 1997 (Annexure-4).

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that in the recovery proceedings, petitioner had filed objections wherein it was stated that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent- workman had joined duties and had been paid wages as per the settlement and so, issuance of recovery notice is unjustified. Reliance was placed upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.S. Gupta Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs. Labour Commissioner, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & ors. 69 (1997) DLT 950 to submit that reasons for overruling the objections of the Management have to be given and the impugned Recovery Notice does not give any such reason and so, it deserves to be quashed.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned Recovery Notice, material on record and decision cited, I find that impugned Recovery Notice (Annexure P-7) cannot be sustained because it does not take into consideration the objection (Annexure P-6) made by petitioner. Hence, the impugned Recovery Notice (Annexure P-7) is hereby set aside, with liberty to the Recovery Officer to proceed against petitioner after dealing

with the objections (Annexure P-6) and by passing a speaking order.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 16, 2015 r