1 W.P.No.1561.98 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1561 OF 1998 M/s.Kundan Powerlooms ... Petitioner v/s 1. Shri M.V.Mara 2. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr.K.S.Bapat for the petitioner. Mr.P.G.Sawant, “B” Panel advocate for the State. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 27TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 24.2.1998 under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the I.D. Act). The respondent has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of `50,800/- to the respondent workman. 2. The respondent workman obtained a reference for 2 W.P.No.1561.98 adjudication of his demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The respondent claimed that his services had been illegally terminated on 1.7.1986. Accepting the contentions of respondent workman the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.82 of 1987 passed an award on 31.1.1989. The Labour Court granted the workman reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. 3. Since the petitioner had not complied with the award, the respondent workman approached the appropriate Government under Section 33-C(1) of the I. D. Act. A recovery certificate was issued for an amount of `36,000/- on 11.1.1990 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. It was sent to the Collector for recovering the amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 33-C(4) read with (1) of the I.D.Act as arrears of land revenue. 4. According to the petitioner, parties settled the dispute and the workman agreed to tender his resignation and accept an amount of `20,000/- instead of the amount `36,000/-. The petitioners contend that the parties informed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by letter dated 7.11.1993 indicating that they had settled their dispute for an amount of `20,000/- which was paid to the workman. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner informed the Collector, Pune, that the dues 3 W.P.No.1561.98 against the recovery certificate issued on 11.1.1990 had been recovered in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The Collector was therefore informed not to proceed with the recovery proceedings. 5. It appears that, on 20.2.1996, after two years, the workman again approached the appropriate Government under Section 33-C(1) claiming the amount of `50,800/-. He contended that he had been deceived into accepting `20,000/- at the behest of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who had issued the earlier recovery certificate of 11.1.1990. He further contended that he was entitled to the amount claimed which included the wages payable to him as he had not been reinstated in service after the award. 6. The petitioner contended that the entire dispute was settled for an amount of `20,000/-. A copy of the letter of resignation was placed on record as well as the other records indicating payment of `20,000/-. The Assistant Commissioner not being satisfied with the contention of the petitioner, recorded a finding that the workman was entitled to `50,800/- i.e. `16,000/- under the earlier certificate and `34,800/- as wages for the subsequent period. A recovery certificate was issued accordingly pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.2.1998. 4 W.P.No.1561.98 7. The Assistant Commissioner in this case has, in my opinion, overstepped the powers vested in him. There was material on record to indicate that the petitioner and the respondent workman have settled their dispute in respect of the first recovery certificate for an amount of `20,000/-. A copy of the letter of resignation was also placed on record by the petitioners. Thus there is a serious dispute as to whether the workman was entitled to the amount claimed by him. It is now well settled that the appropriate Government acting under the provisions of Section 33-C(1) can direct the recovery of money due to a workman under an award provided an application is made within one year of the date on which the money became due from the employer. However, he may record his reasons for entertaining the application beyond that period. The amount claimed by the workman was on the basis that he had been deceived into accepting only `20,000/- pursuant to the first recovery certificate. No reason was mentioned by him for approaching the appropriate Government after two years nor was any reason mentioned by the Assistant Commissioner for entertaining the application after the prescribed period of limitation. Unfortunately, in the present case, the Assistant Commissioner has not considered the effect of the resignation submitted by the workman. When there was a 5 W.P.No.1561.98 serious dispute as to whether the resignation was valid, the appropriate Government i.e. the Assistant Commissioner in provisions of Section 33-C(1) could not have entered into this controversy as his powers are not as wide as those of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2). In these circumstances, in my opinion, the order impugned in the present petition deserves to be set aside. 8. The impugned order is set aside. 9. The costs of `2,000/- however, which have been deposited in this Court, shall be paid over to the workman along with accrued interest. The remaining amount of `16,000/- which was deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court shall be returned to the petitioner along with the interest accrued thereon. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. .....