CWP No. 13716 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13716 of 2008 Date of decision August 4, 2009 State of Punjab through Chief Engineer (Irrigation Works), Punjab ....... Petitioner Versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh and others. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Ms. Monica Chibbar Sharma, DAG., Punjab for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes K. Kannan, J(oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the recovery order issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Chief Engineer for Rs.4,46,481/-. This amount is purported to be in execution of the order made by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order dated 4.2.2002 does not spell out the exact amount which is due and payable to the workman but states that the workman is entitled to the scale of Rs.1200-2100 which according to the workman had been denied to him without any reason. The objections on behalf of the Government to the recovery notice of the amount of Rs. 4,46,481/- is that the amounts on the scale as fixed by the Labour Court had already been paid and the Government has filed document (Annexure P-6) that contains an extract of the details of the payments alleged to have been made by the Employer to the workman. 2. There is a particular procedure which is prescribed CWP No. 13716 of 2008 2 under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of money value of the benefits as follows:- “For the purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.” 3. From the order dated 4.2.2002 it is not possible to discern any specific amount as payable. It therefore, evidentially required a calculation to be made and it is not seen from the order of recovery as to how the amount has been calculated. Though, the workman has his own calculation statement which entitled him to such a claim, it cannot be a matter of a unilateral decision by the Labour Commissioner without a clear adjudication in the manner as contemplated under Section 33-C (3). This is all the more relevant in view of the fact that there is a dispute on question of fact as to whether the amount has been paid already in the scale of pay as indicated in the order of the Labour Court dated 4.2.2002 or any more amount is still payable. The recovery order is set aside and it shall be open to the workman to apply for computation in the manner as contemplated under Section 33-C (3) and obtain specific directions regarding any amount alleged to be due to him and the recoveries shall proceed only after such an adjudication. 4. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 4, 2009 archana