IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 429 of 2004 (M/B) Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma, Widow of Late N.M. Sharma, At present R/o Flat No. 45, Phase I, Pocket 5, Mayur Vihar. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, Through Collector / D.M. Nainital. 2. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital. 3. Sri Chakradhar Bhatt, S/o Late Laxmi Datt, R/o Manpur (North), P.O. Mahesh Nagar, Nainital. ……. Respondents Ms. Menaka Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the state of Uttaranchal. Mr. V.K. Bist, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ambrish Chatterji, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. P.C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Ms. Menaka Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. V.K. Bist, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ambrish Chatterji, Advocate for respondent No. 3. They are heard. 2. Petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “I. issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 06.09.2003 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and also quashing the order issued, if any, in pursuance of the order dated 06.09.2003; II. issue any other order, writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case; 2 III. award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner.” 3. The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against her vide order dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure 1). From the order, itself, it is apparent that the amount of Rs. 5,38,978/- sought to be recovered from the petitioner in her capacity as Director or Naini paints Pvt. Ltd. was on account of the liability arising out of the award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Uttaranchal, Haldwani. 4. A copy of the award dated 25.10.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Uttaranchal, Haldwani in Arbitration Dispute No. 59 of 1997 has been annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 as Annexure 1. 5. As the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner in her capacity as Director of Naini Paints Pvt. Ltd. is on account of the liability arising out of the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 25.10.2002 and the said award, admittedly, has not been challenged either by the Company or by the petitioner, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition against the recovery proceedings initiated against her vide order dated 06.09.2003 cannot be granted. The writ petition, thus, is liable to be dismissed. 6. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to challenge the award dated 25.10.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Uttaranchal, Haldwani in Arbitration Dispute No. 59 of 1997 before an appropriate forum as may be permissible under the relevant provisions of law. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the interim order dated 27.05.2004 stands vacated automatically. (P.C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 12.04.2006 12.04.2006 G