SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda and also praying for quashing of the sale proclamation dated 25.4.2012 and the recovery certificate no.526/Sa.Shrama/Government Order-Recovery/2011/dated 2.5.2011.
(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Narang Industries arrayed as respondent no.5 to the writ petition. Respondent no.4 Ghanshyam Shukla was an employee of respondent no.5 Company upto 31.3.2001. Respondent no.5 at that time was running a distillery at Nawabganj, Gonda. Respondent no.4 filed a Minimum Wages Case no.63 of 2003 against Narang Industries, respondent no.5. The same was decided ex-parte on 14.2.2003. Respondent no.5 thereafter filed an application for recall. In the meantime, respondent no.4 also filed an application for amendment of the claim petition seeking to remove the name of respondent no.5 from the array of parties and to incorporate the name of petitioner Company on the ground that the factory/distillery has been sold by Narang Industries. Both the recall application and amendment application were allowed by the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 19.9.2003 and the petitioner Company was arrayed as respondent in place of Narang Industries. On receipt of notice, the petitioner filed an application indicating that it had wrongly been arrayed as respondent and that it had no liability for payment of dues towards the claimant as he had never been its employee. The claim petition was allowed on 29.11.2007 by the Prescribed Authority holding that the petitioner Company did not have any liability for making payment to the claimant, but Narang Industries is liable for satisfying the award. It recalled the order dated 19.9.2003, allowing the amendment in the array of respondents and directed arraying of Narang Industries as respondent in the minimum wages case. The petitioner Company was not held liable for satisfying the award. However, a recovery certificate was issued on 28.2.2008 by the Prescribed Authority against the petitioner Company for an amount of Rs.7,33,088/-. Again a recovery certificate was issued on 27.3.2008 by the Prescribed Authority against Narang Industries.
(3.) When the Tehsil authorities instead of sending the recovery certificate issued on 27.3.2008 against the respondent no.5 sought to recover the amount from the petitioner Company, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.81 (MB) of 2010 and this Court stayed the recovery proceedings. In the meantime, the Tehsildar, Tarabganj, Gonda filed a counter affidavit stating that the recovery proceedings had been wrongly initiated against the petitioner company, therefore, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 21.4.2010 relying on the submission of the Tehsil authorities that the recovery certificate had been recalled.;