PRAFULCHANDRA PURSHOTTAMDAS PANCHAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, trade union, through its General Secretary, has invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent upon being partly aggrieved by the directions issued in order dated March 15, 2010 by learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10797/2009 and allied matters. The Appellant herein had approached this Court by petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayers, inter alia, for writ of mandamus to the District Collector, Ahmedabad to immediately recover the amounts due to the workmen under order of the Labour Court, for the recovery of which recovery certificate dated March 5, 2009 was already issued against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein. That recovery certificate for recovery of the sum of ' 31,09,597.65 ps. was issued pursuant to the order of Labour Court in Misc. Application No. 368/2008 in Payment of Wages Application No. 42/2008. Admittedly, the amounts had fallen due to 57 employees on account of the award and order to reinstate them with back wages.

(2.) A dispute was raised by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein before learned single Judge on the basis of the contention that the workmen concerned were directly paid certain amounts in full and final settlement of their dues and that claim was refuted by the Appellant trade union. It appears that said Respondents sought to substantiate their contention by certain documents in the form of vouchers of payment and letters of resignation bearing signatures purported to have been put by the workmen concerned. As against that, it was the case of the Appellant that, as was always the case of workmen, the Respondents had misused signatures which were obtained on blank papers and blank vouchers at the time of appointment or during the period of service of the workmen concerned. In view of such factual controversies raised before the Court, learned single Judge issued the following directions:

(3.) It must be noted at the outset that the above directions are not challenged by the Respondents. It was contended by learned senior Advocate Mr. K.M. Patel, appearing for the Appellant, that the directions were proving to be impracticable, insofar as the Mamlatdar appointed under the order was incapable and incompetent to decide the issues sought to be raised by the Respondents and, in any case, actual proceeding for recovery as arrears of land revenue could not involve such exercise and the recovery proceedings themselves may not survive if the bank guarantee already furnished by the Respondents were invoked and the amounts were deposited in the Labour Court. He submitted that proper procedure for the Respondents, if at all any payments were directly made to the workmen concerned, was to make appropriate application for cancellation or modification of the recovery certificate. On the other hand, learned A.G.P., appearing for the District Collector, submitted, on instruction of Mr. K.B. Parekh himself, that he was unable to resolve the dispute raised by the Respondents, insofar as the documents and vouchers produced by the Respondents required verification and, in some cases, even opinion of handwriting expert in view of denial of receipt of any money as per document by the workmen concerned.