CLIFTON ELECTRONIKS Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is awrit petition by the first petitioner, anindustrial establishrnent and the second petitioner. Managing partner of the first petitioner, questioning the recovery notice dated November 1,1994 issued by third respondent. Labour Officer, and recovery certificate dated November 25,1994ssued by the same authority (Annexure-F). The facts in brief are as under:-

(2.) The petitioners decided to close its factory unit with effect from March 31,1993. It is also alleged that on January 1,1993 the petitioners made an application to the appropriate government, viz., Delhi Administration for seeking permission to close the unit under Section 25 (0) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act') but inspite of it Under Secretary-cum-Labour Commissioner, National Capital Territory of Delhi Region issued a letter (recovery certificate) dated July 26,1993 requiring the District Collection Officer (Collector) Tis Hazari to recover a sum of Rs.l,12,700.00 from the petitioners in respect of wages of 44 employees for the months of April and May, 1993 under Section 25 (0) of the Act. This amount was required to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 33 (C) (1) of the Act. The communication in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:-

(3.) The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the recovery certiicate filed a writ petition, being CWP 4034/93, in this Court. This writ petition came to be decided on May 20,1994. The order is a short one and reads as under:- "20.5.94 Present: Mr.C.M..Lal for the petitioners. Mr.Jagdish Vats for respondents 1 to 7. Mr. N.D. Pancholi for respondent No.5. CW 4034 & CMs 6410/93 & CM 149/94 The pleadings are complete. Rule D.B. By interim order dated 24th November, 1993 the petitioners was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.l,12,700.00 with the Labour Commissioner and consistently with, the orders dated 9.2.1994 and 5.4.1994 the amount has been disbursed to the workers. Alongwith the counter affidavit, letter dated 26.4.1993 annexure R-l has been filed. On 24.32.1993 the learned counsel for the petitioners proposed this letter being treated as an application for permission for closing the establishment under Section 25 (0) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it is directed that the letter dated 26.4.1993 Annexure R-1 shall be treated by the Labour Commissioner as an application under Section 25(0) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and disposed off within the statutory limit of time calculated from today. The counsel for the petitioners states that the letter annexure R-l was accompanied by an application in the prescribed performa, without entering into the controversy raised as to whether letter annexure R- 1 was accompanied by an application or not, we direct the petitioners to file a copy of the said application within a week before the Labour Commissioner. The petition stands disposed of. sd/- R.C..Lahoti-Judge sd/- C.M..Nayar--Judge" 26.5.1994