Civil Writ Petition No.3622 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3622 of 2008 Date of decision: March 12, 2008 M/s New Janta Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., Batala … Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by M/s New Janta Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the ‘Management’) praying for quashing of Annexure P-7, whereby application of the petitioner Management was dismissed in pursuance of orders passed by this Court on January 11, 2007 (Annexure P-6). Challenge has also been made to the auction notice issued by respondent No.3 for recovery of dues to respondent No.2 (hereinafter called the workman). It has also been prayed that award dated 11th April, 2001 (Annexure P-1) to the extent of back wages be not given effect to as it is alleged that mutual compromise was entered into between the parties on 9th July, 2004. Before we give our due consideration to the prayers made, it will be necessary to advert to the facts of the case. Civil Writ Petition No.3622 of 2008 2 Briefly stated, the workman respondent No.2 got referred Industrial dispute for adjudication on 16th March, 1995 wherein it was prayed that the termination of the services of the workman was not justified. On 11th April, 2001, learned Labour Court gave award (Annexure P-1) and held that the termination of the workman is liable to be set aside and ordered that he be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. Award dated 11th April, 2001 (Annexure P-1) was not challenged. However, for the first time, petitioner Management approached this Court by filing civil writ petition No. 17497 of 2006 against the action of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Batala (respondent No.3) praying that the recovery certificate under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act could not have been issued. It was submitted before this Court that despite filing of representation, recovery certificate was issued without application of mind. Civil writ petition No. 17497 of 2006 was disposed off by this Court on January 11, 2007. It will be necessary here to reproduce the relevant portion: “In view of the facts explained above, it is not necessary, at this stage, to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, directions are issued to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Batala to decide representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner, as per law. Needful be done within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, recovery of the amount from the petitioner be kept in abeyance.” In pursuance of above said direction of this Court, Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Assistant Collector (Grade-I), Batala (respondent No.-3) (hereinafter called ‘respondent No.3’) proceeded to decide the representation. He noticed in his order (Annexure P-7) that no such representation was given. The relevant portion of the order (Annexure P-7) is reproduced below: Civil Writ Petition No.3622 of 2008 3 “On receipt of the directions, office was directed to locate the representation dated 6.2.2006 (P3) alleged to have been given by M/s Janta Bus Service (P) Ltd. But has not given any such representation to the office, nor it is found in the diary receipt register. Had any such representation as Annexure P-3 dated 6.2.2006 been given to the office, it was bound to be entered in the diary receipt register. It seems that correct fact had not been mentioned by you to the Hon’ble High Court either by way of omission, rather it is misconceived and frivolous statement/ allegation and is false.” It has been further noticed by the respondent No.-3 as under: “This Court has given reasonable and adequate opportunities as per parameter of natural justice on 14.11.02, 3.10.03, 9.10.03, 2.4.04, 29.4.04, 24.6.04 & 28.4.05. As respondent/ employer failed to comply the orders, this Court resorted to proceeding under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and issued recovery certificate on 25.12.2005 (attested copy of the same is attached herewith). But still on receipt of notice, you were specifically directed to attend and appear before me to plead your case, in view of High Court orders/ directions so that the direction be implemented within stipulated period of six months. You were directed to appear on 20.2.07, 13.3.07, 29.3.07, 20.4.07, 24.4.07, 18.5.07, 25.5.07, 8.6.07, 22.6.07 and on 6.7.07 as per record. You have failed to cooperate to produce even the copy of representation/ submitting such application dated 6.2.06 or any proof to that effect. The above fact clearly shows that neither you had submitted any application/ representation which could be decided by this office, you have perhaps mislead the Hon’ble High Court by submitting false statement to obtain a favourable order from the Court.” Respondent No.3 further held that no reliance can be placed upon Annexure P-2 which is claimed to be settlement as vide proceedings dated 9th July, 2004, it was agreed to deposit provident fund from 1982 Civil Writ Petition No.3622 of 2008 4 onwards, but as per the certificate issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been deposited with effect from March 1988 to February 2005 with break of two years i.e., 2002 and 2003. It was further noticed that application for the implementation of the award was submitted by the workman on 31st July, 2002 within one year of notification of the award in the official gazette but Management had been taking dates/ adjournments time and again and therefore is not implementing the award. From the facts above said, it emerges that the workman is running from pillar to post since 11th April, 2001, the date when award was passed and the Management, on one pretext or the other, is using every tactics in its sleeve to deny the benefit of award to the workman. We cannot loose sight of fact that Management, which is placed in a better position with filing of one application or other, is resorting to every kind of litigation to defeat benefits to the workman, which had accrued in his favour on 11th April, 2001. Present civil writ petition is another such attempt. Therefore, on facts, law and equity, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner Management. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and same is dismissed. [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 12, 2008. rps