Delhi High Court
North Delhi Municipal ... vs Niranjan & Anr. on 23 January, 2019
$~R-15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23.01.2019
+ W.P.(C) No.12175/2015
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Biji Rajesh, Adv.
versus
NIRANJAN & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner/North Delhi Municipal
Corporation impugns a recovery certificate dated 02.12.2015 issued
by the respondent no.2/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi for a sum of Rs.4,39,662/-, which amount was found to be
payable to the respondent no.1 in pursuance to the award dated
07.03.2002 passed in ID No.204/1988. As per the aforesaid Award,
the respondent's retirement at the age of 53 years was held to be
illegal and the petitioner was directed to pay the respondent no.1
75% arrears of pay and arrears of revised pension, as if he had
actually worked till he attained the actual age of superannuation, i.e.,
60 years. The amount of monthly pension already paid was, however,
directed to be deducted from the amount payable to the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the
Award, the petitioner had made certain payments to the respondents
but the respondent being not satisfied with the same, had moved an
application under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner/respondent no.2,
annexing therewith a statement of accounts showing the calculation
of the amount payable to him on account of arrears of difference of
pension for the period from 01.03.2006 to 31.07.2015. While stating
that there is no dispute qua the amount paid to the respondent no.1,
for the period upto 28.02.2006, she submits that respondent no.2 had
simply accepted the respondent no.1's calculation without applying
his mind as to basis thereof. She, thus, contends that the impugned
recovery certificate suffers from non-application of mind and,
therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the said recovery
certificate be quashed.
3. On the other hand, Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 states that once the petitioner did not file any
objections or reply to the application filed by the respondent no.1
seeking difference of arrears of pension for the period 01.03.2006 to
31.07.2015, the respondent no.2 was fully justified in accepting the
calculation furnished by the respondent no.1 which accordingly to
him was based on the actual pension payable to respondent no.1.
4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, I am of the view that once the petitioner itself did not bother
to file any response to the application under Section 33(C)(1)
preferred by the respondents, the Deputy Labour
Commissioner/respondent no.2 cannot at all be faulted for accepting
the calculation furnished by the respondent no.1/workman. However,
keeping in view the fact that there is nothing on record to show the
amount of basic pension to which the respondent no.1 was entitled
and in the light of the petitioner's contention that the amount of basic
pension claimed by the respondent no.1 in his application before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner was wrong and was much more than
what he had himself claimed in similar proceedings qua the earlier
period, it would be in the interest of justice that subject to payment of
costs, the petitioner be granted another opportunity, as prayed for, to
demonstrate before respondent no.2 that the respondent no.1's
calculations filed along with the application were erroneous.
Mr.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 fairly does not
oppose the said prayer. He, however, states that in case the matter is
remanded back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Deputy
Labour Commissioner may be directed to take a decision on the
respondent no.1's claim in an expeditious manner.
5. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the impugned
recovery certificate is set aside, subject to the petitioner paying a sum
of Rs.25,000/- as costs to the respondent no.1 and the matter is
remitted back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for a fresh
determination of the amount payable to respondent no.1 towards
arrears of pension in accordance with the Award.
6. The petitioner is granted liberty to file within one week, its
reply/objections to the respondent no.1's application before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner along with a copy of this order.
Respondent no.1 would be at liberty to file a rejoinder thereto within
one week thereafter. The Deputy Labour Commissioner/respondent
no.2 will thereafter decide within one month, the respondent no.1's
aforesaid application by following principles of natural justice.
7. Since the matter is now being remitted back to the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, the respondent no.1 would also be free to
point out the deficiencies, if any, in respect of the arrears of pension
w.e.f. 01.08.2015 till 31.01.2019 and the same will also be considered
by the respondent no.2 while passing the fresh order/issuing the
recovery certificate.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. Needless to state that in case any of the parties are aggrieved by
the order passed/recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner/respondent no.2, it will be open for them to take legal
recourse as permissible under law.
10. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2019/gm
