U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-115
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 17,2012

U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Writ petition is directed against the recovery certificate dated 21.10.1991 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Meerut Region, Meerut on an application filed by respondent workman under Section 6-H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1947") wherein he had claimed only Rs.1,00,313/- the amount payable to him from 1986 to 1990. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, however, has issued recovery certificate, impugned in this writ petition, for Rs.1,93,515/-.
(2.) Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever amount due to the workman concerned under the award dated 09.3.1990 in Adjudication Case No.148 of 1988 was already paid to the workman concerned and this was detailed in the reply submitted by the petitioner-employer but without looking into the reply given by the employer, Deputy Labour Commissioner in a mechanical manner has issued recovery certificate and that too for a sum more than the amount actually claimed by the workman.
(3.) A perusal of workman's application dated 20th February, 1991, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, it is evident that the workman claimed that a sum of Rs.1,70,500/- became due to him from 1986 to 1990 against which he had received Rs.70,187/- and therefore remaining unpaid amount of Rs.1,00,313/-, which he claimed, is due to him. The petitioner-employer in their reply, copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, has clearly shown that whatever amount due to the workman was already paid and the amount he has claimed, no basis thereof has been given and the said amount was not payable to him. Without looking into the dispute about actual claim set up by the workman, in a mechanical manner and without application of mind the Deputy Labour Commissioner has issued recovery certificate which is more than the amount actually claimed by the workman and recovery certificate of such an amount could not have been issued. The said recovery certificate is ex facie illegal and cannot sustain.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.