C.W.P. No. 8359 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 8359 of 2000. Date of decision: 30.1.2008 Cement Corporation of India -- Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: - Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. K.C.PURI, J. Challenged in this writ petition is awarded dated 21.12.1999 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide which reference was answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 13. Private respondent Nos. 4 to 13 were the employees of petitioner. They have retired in the month of June, 1992 and the management sent notices for recovery of the amount from the respondents. Respondents No. 4 to 13 filed C.W.P.No. 1723 of 1992 and vide order dated 4.2.1992, notice of motion for 31.3.1992 was issued and the recovery from the respondents were paid and ultimately the present petitioner was directed not to made recovery before hearing respondent Nos. 4 to 13. The petitioner after hearing respondent Nos.4 to 13 again held the order of recovery as well. The matter was ultimately referred to the C.W.P. No. 8359 of 2000 2 Labour Court. The Labour Court while Award Annexure P-11 dated 21.12.1999 held the order of recovery as bad. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Chandigarh dated 21.12.1999, the present writ petition has been filed. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workmen i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 13 have done less work of vioparation in the year 1985-86 and on that account the recovery as valid but the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any substance. Learned Labour Court vide Award Annexure P-11 has held that in case the recoveries are ordered to be made in that case . The wages of respondent Nos. 4 to 14 shall fall short of minimum wages and relying upon the authorities People Union for Democratic Right Vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 S.C. 1473, Sanjit Rao Vs. State of Rajastan AIR 1983 S.C. 328, Bandhua Mukti Morch Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 S.C. 802 etc, it has been held that workmen cannot be allowed to pay less wages then the minimum wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh Annexure P-10 dated 4.2.1996 held the recovery as valid. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any force in that submission C.W.P. No. 8359 of 2000 3 as these points of minimum wages was not adjudicated in Award, Annexure P-10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been declared Sikh Unit and on that account the award is bad. I have carefully considered that submission also but knowledge to scribe to that submission. The recoveries relate to the year 19851985-86. Respondents No. 4 to 13 retired on 30.6.1992. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner Corporation was declared Sikh unit in the year 1996 and as such without admitting the fact that unit has been declared Sikh Unit, it does not effect the rights of the respondent Nos. 4 to 13 as the recovery relates to period prior to alleged declining the petitioner as Sikh Unit. Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 have retired on 30.6.1992 now to unsettle their position by ordering the recovery after a period of sixteen years would be against the spirit of industrial justice. No other point has been urged before me. Writ petition is without merit and the same stands dismissed. January 30, 2008. (K.C.PURI ) Anoop JUDGE C.W.P. No. 8359 of 2000 4