IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1590 (M/S) of 2010 State of Uttarakhand and another .. Petitioners. Versus Roshan Singh S/o Sri Ram Sharan and others .. Respondents. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Tewari, learned Brief Holder for respondents 2 to 4. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the petitioners and Sri K.C. Tewari, Brief Holder for respondents 2 to 4. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned letter dated 4th August, 2008 of respondent No.2, as well as ‘citation to appear’ issued by Tehsildar, Dehradun, showing amount worth Rs. 3,46,731/- (Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition). The writ petition has been filed on the ground that an award was made by the Labour Court on 31.8.1995, whereby the respondent No.1 was reinstated in service along with back wages as Rs. 20,000/-. The Labour Court also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 4907/2001(M/S) (Old No. 23119/1996), which was dismissed by the High Court. Again being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this court the petitioner preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. (s) 17707 of 2006, before the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that– the respondent/workman has since attained the age of superannuation, therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise. However, liberty was given to respondent/workman to withdraw the back 2 wages deposited with the Industrial Tribunal, Dehradun without furnishing security and on such withdrawal, the entire matter was to stand settled and disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, back wages and Rs. 1,000/- litigation expenses, had already been deposited with the Deputy Labour Commissioner, but the Deputy Labour Commissioner issued the impugned letter for recovery of Rs. 3,15,210/-, which is contrary to the material on record as the Labour Court had awarded the consolidated sum of Rs. 20,000/- only in lieu of back wages to the workman/respondent. The further contention of petitioner is that the petitioner filed recall/review application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner Dehradun on 8-6-2009, for recalling the impugned letter dated 4-8-2008. The Deputy Labour Commissioner fixed as many as 19 dates on the above recall application, but the same is still pending for disposal. The impugned award reveals that a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 1,000/- litigation expenses was awarded to the workman/respondent in lieu of back wages and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the S.L.P. has given liberty to the respondent/workman to withdraw that back wages deposited with the Industrial Tribunal Dehradun, without furnishing security, but in the citation to appear, Annexure-2, a sum of Rs. 3,46,731/- has been shown which is apparently contrary to the material on record. The petitioner had already filed recall application for recalling the impugned letter issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner as well as the citation to appear issued by Tehsildar Dehradun, which is still pending. 3 Since the amount of back wages plus litigation expenses, i.e. Rs. 21,000/- has already been deposited with the Deputy Labour Commissioner, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to direct the Deputy Labour Commissioner to dispose the recall application, after hearing the petitioner, on the basis of the order passed by the Labour Court, High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above, as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till the decision on recall application, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner on the basis of impugned order. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Dated: 10-09-2010 (B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB 4