IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MS) No. 496 OF 2008 M/s Garhwal Motors Owners’ Union Ltd. ……Petitioner. Versus The State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents Present : Mr. Raman K. Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. L.S. Samant, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Date of Decision : 28.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Raman K. Sah, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. L.S. Samant, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.1.2008 and order dated 18.1.2008 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun in respect of Award Case No. 159 of 2000 Shri Satey Singh Negi Vs. GMOU. 3. The petitioner is a private company namely M/s Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd and respondent no. 3 is the workman in the said company. Initially, respondent no. 3 had raised an industrial dispute under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act, in which on 29.3.2001 an award to the tune of Rs. 11,773.50 was made in his favour. This award was challenged by the present petitioner in a writ petition being Writ Petition (MS) No. 449 of 2002, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.4.2006 and it was clearly mentioned in the order that full back wages shall be paid to the workman. Consequently, a review petition was also filed by the petitioner and the order dated 19.4.2006 was modified to some extent inasmuch as the workman was directed to be reinstated in service but with 50% back wages with consent of both the counsels. However, since thereafter on 25.10.2006 the workman respondent no. 3 moved an application under Section 6 H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, in which the petitioner also 2 filed his reply to execution proceedings on 27.12.2006, vide order dated 17.1.2008 the Deputy Labour Commissioner issued recovery certificate of Rs. 3,02,160/- against the petitioner. Consequently, the Collector, Pauri Garhwal issued recovery citation to recover the said money from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging both the aforesaid orders stating that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has not considered the orders passed by this Court, whereby only 50% of the back wages was to be given to respondent no. 3. Moreover, though the amount of Rs. 1,58,394/- has already been deposited by the petitioner, the same has not been deducted from Rs. 3,02,160/-. 4. What is clear is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal, has not considered the relevant facts as to what was the actual wages of the workman and other benefits, excluding the bonus, which are liable to be given to the workman /respondent no. 3 during 1997 – 2002. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :- “The orders dated 17.1.2008 and 18.1.2008 are hereby set aside. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal, Dehradun is hereby directed to hear the workman as well as the petitioner. The workman shall state before the Labour Court as to what are his dues, apart from the actual wages payable to him and thereafter the amount already given to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1,58,394/- will be deducted. If thereafter any amounts is due on the workman, the same shall be paid to him without delay. 5. The instant writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 28.9.2010 Rathour