* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 6863/2005 % Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009 # THE GENERAL MANAGER, ASHOK HOTEL ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. V.K. Rao, Advocate. VERSUS $ THE ASSTT. COLLECTOR & OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Upadhyaya, Authorised representative of respondent No. 3 Union CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The management of Ashok Hotel (petitioner herein), in this writ petition, seeks setting aside of impugned recovery certificate dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure P-12 at page 59 of the Paper Book) issued by the Assistant Collector pursuant to award dated 24.08.2002 in ID No. 241/96/98 directing the petitioner to pay the difference of pay in the pay of Helpers and that of Technician Grade-III to two of its workmen namely Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh. 2. Mr. V.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that he has instructions from his client for not pressing this writ petition but seeks liberty to recover the excess payment, if any, made to the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh from their future salary. W.P.(C) No. 6863/2005 Page 1 of 2 3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh have been paid excess amount of Rs. 1,04,671/- which was not due to them in terms of award of the Industrial Adjudicator dated 24.08.2002 in I.D. No. 241/96/98 and, therefore, request is made for allowing the petitioner to recover this excess amount from the future salary or the above-named workmen. However, Mr. S.S. Upadhyaya, authorised representative of respondent No. 3 union, says that no excess payment has been made to the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh and, therefore, according to him, question of recovery does not arise. 4. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, will not go into the disputed questions of fact as to what payment was actually due to the workmen Mr. Som Prakash and Mr. Rajesh in terms of award dated 24.08.2002 and as to whether they have been paid excess payment or not, because the parties can take appropriate proceedings for the same as per law. Hence, directions for recovery of excess payment, if any, made by the petitioner's counsel cannot be given in this writ petition. However, the petitioner can recover the excess payment, if any, from the workmen in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of as not pressed by petitioner's counsel. All miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of as not pressed. JULY 28, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'bsr' W.P.(C) No. 6863/2005 Page 2 of 2