HARISHANDRA K VAKHARIA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.01.1997 passed by respondent no. 1, whereby respondent no. 1 had directed respondent no. 2 to effect recovery of Rs.34,840/- from the petitioner towards the amount of gratuity payable to the concerned workmen.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that respondent no. 4 is a partnership firm, namely K.J. Vakharia & Co. and the petitioner was the partner in the said firm. Somewhere in the year 1994, the petitioner retired from the said partnership firm. Pursuant thereto, the partnership firm was reconstituted and renamed as Rajan Prints. The partners of the said firm were Jawahar K Vakharia and his wife Chandraika J Vakharia. The petitioner has paid a large sum to Jawahar Vakharia towards part consideration of dyeing and printing unit which was to be taken over by the petitioner. However, on account of dispute between them, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Suit No. 2586 of 1994 before the learned Civil Judge (SD) Surat for declaration and injunction. However, with the intervention of the relatives, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator vide order dated 03.08.1994, directed that the portion of the land on which K.J. Vakharia & Co. was running its dyeing & printing unit along with the factory should be given to Jawahar K. Vakharia and the business run by the family in the name of Vakharia Traders be handed over to the petitioner.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is not the partner of the partnership firm namely, K.J. Vakharia. Even at the time of issuance of recovery certificate, the petitioner was not the partner of the said firm and, therefore, he cannot he held liable to pay the amount in question towards gratuity. It transpires from the record that the date on which the Controlling Authority had issued the recovery certificate, the petitioner was a partner in the partnership firm, namely, K.J. Vakharia. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any clause in the Resolution that the liability has gone with the new partnership firm i.e. 'Rajan Prints'. Looking to the facts of the case, and in view of the interim order dated 28.07.1994 passed by the Court below, the petitioner is also liable to pay the amount in question towards gratuity, payable to the concerned workman. In the impugned order, respondent no. 1 had discussed the entire evidence in detail and I find that while arriving at the conclusion respondent no. 1 has not committed any illegality which warrants any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived at by the Labour Court and hence, do not find any reason to interfere with the same. However, it will be open for the petitioner to claim the said amount from the original partnership firm, if the dissolution deed between the parties provide the same.