Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 366/2005 (Old No. 33866/1997) U.P. State Electricity Board & Other ………Petitioners Versus Smt. Jaitun Begum & Other ………….Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 23 rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the orders dated 26.3.1997 and 24.4.1997 passed by the respondent no. 2/Labour Court, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case no. 12 of 1997. 2. Respondent no. 1 is the widow of late Sri Abdul Wahid who was working as Assistant Store Keeper in the establishment of the petitioner. Abdul Wahid died in harness no 1.8.1987. Shortage of Materials worth Rs. 46,349/- under the control of deceased employee was detected. The department vide order dated 5.1.1982 decided that the said amount shall be treated as an advance to the deceased employee and shall be recovered accordingly. However, recovery could not be made and Abdul Wahid died on 1.8.1987. 3. Respondent no. 1 filed an application dated 24.12.1996 under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court claiming the arrears of pension, gratuity and group insurance scheme. Petitioner in reply to the aforesaid application stated that Rs. 84,432.72 was due to the respondent no. 1 towards the arrears of family pension and gratuity. However, as Rs. 46,349/- was to be recovered from the deceased employee and Rs. 8000/- being the management’s contributions towards the Employees Provident Fund which was directly withdrawn by the respondent no. 1 was also to be recovered and after deduction of this amount only Rs. 30,410.12 was due to the respondent no. 1 and the same was paid to her. 4. Vide order dated 26.3.1997, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent no. 1 and directed the petitioners to pay the amount claimed by the respondent no. 1 within one month from the date of the order. Petitioners filed review application on 27.3.1997 seeking review of the order dated 26.3.1997. The Labour Court vide order dated 24.4.1997 rejected the said review application. 5. I have perused the materials available on the record. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court. If any shortage of the stock was detected by the department, enquiry should have been held against the deceased employee. But it appears that no enquiry was initiated against the deceased employee and straightway order of recovery was passed. Moreover, if any recovery was to be made, it would have been recovered during his service period. The recovery has been ordered on 5.1.1982 and the workman died on 1.8.1987 while he was in service but the recovery proceedings even did not start against him. Under these facts and circumstance, Labour Court rightly held that now the amount towards the alleged recovery cannot be deducted from the arrears of gratuity, insurance, etc. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, amount already paid to the respondent no. 1 shall be adjusted while making the payment in execution of the order passed under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The amount deposited in this High Court shall be remitted forthwith to the concerned Labour Court for satisfying the award. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 23.7.2008 Prabodh