J.J. Munir, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M.K. Maurya, holding brief of Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Maurya, holding brief of Sri Satya Prakash Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.? This petition has been filed by the Insurance Company that had insured Truck No.HR-33-E-0626 owned by the respondent No.3-Ranjor Singh. The husband of the second respondent was a driver, who met with a fatal accident during the course of employment on 2.1.2012. A claim was laid before the Workman's Compensation Commissioner, who passed an award dated 28.2.2013 against the owner alone and exempted the Insurance Company of liability to pay the sum of Rs.5,55,083/-, along with interest, in the event of payment being delayed beyond 30 days of the award. The owner challenged the said award before this Court in Writ C-No.38951 of 2013 wherein the following interim order was passed: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by both modes returnable by the next date. Steps to be taken within a week. All may file counter affidavit by then. List in the week commencing 16th of September 2013. Apart from other arguments, it is urged that the deceased driver held a valid license and the vehicle was fully insured and registered and, therefore, the Authority under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 erred in directing the petitioner owner to pay the amount of compensation without considering the liability of the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the operation of the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 shall remain stayed, so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Authority and the claimant would be at liberty to recover the amount from the Insurance Company." In the said interim order the last two lines say that the Authority and the claimant would be at liberty to recover the amount from the Insurance Company. It was on the basis of the aforesaid direction in the interim order that a Recovery Certificate dated 4.6.2014 was issued by the Workman Compensation Commissioner to the District Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan to recover a sum of Rs.5,55,083/- from the Insurance Company, though nothing is recoverable under the award from the insurer. A further memo dated 13.8.2014 has been issued by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur to the District Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan asking the District Magistrate, Jaipur to enforce the Recovery Certificate issued by the Compensation Commissioner. It is the Recovery Certificate dated 4.6.2014 and the memo dated 13.8.2014 that have been challenged in the present petition. The said interim order has come to an end by an order of date passed in Writ C-No.38951 of 2013, which has been dismissed. This being the basis to issue a Recovery Certificate against the petitioner, if at all it could be said to be one, has vanished. Even if the said writ petition had not been dismissed, by an interim order passed by this Court, the award dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner fastening liability upon the owner and exempting the Insurance Company, could not be held to have been modified to provide that liability of the Insurance Company would also be there, besides the owner. This can only happen in the event the award dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Workman's Compensation Commissioner is modified to provide that the Insurance Company would be liable, and not the owner. This certainly could not have come about under an interim order, as that would amount to virtually modifying the final order of the Compensation Commissioner. There is thus, no basis or justification to issue a Recovery Certificate against the Insurance Company for recovery of the money due as compensation to the claimant-respondent No.2, until and unless the order of the Compensation Commissioner is modified to provide to that effect, in competent proceedings challenging the said order. The impugned Recovery Certificate is, therefore, manifestly illegal and is liable to be quashed.
(2.) In the result, the writ petition succeed and is allowed. The impugned recovery certificate dated 4.6.2014 issued by the Workman's Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur and the memo dated 13.8.2014 issued by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur to the District Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan requisitioning the enforcement of that recovery are hereby quashed. There shall be no orders as to costs.;