Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority and Labour Court Dehradun.
(2.) Admittedly, the controlling authority's order was passed long back in year 1991 and there being no explanation for such a long delay in challenging the same after eight years, no interference is being made with the said order.
(3.) With regard to the order of labour court at annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner employer states that the respondent workman did draw his salary upon an excessive fixation at different stages and upon detection of such mistake, deduction and recovery thereby of the excess amount drawn, was within the jurisdiction and perfectly all right so far as the employer is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the statement made in the writ petition and in particular those contained in paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition for showing that the employer petitioner was entitled to recover the said amount. It is contended that in such circumstances the employee concerned could not file application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. With regard to question of grant of opportunity, the learned counsel for the petitioner employer states that the impugned order considered the said aspect without considering the law in this respect as decided in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, 1972 (25) FLR 1 (SC) .;