PARMESHWAR NARAYAN Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to direct the Collector, Ahmedabad to initiate proceedings under the Bombay Land Revenue Code against the respondent no.2 in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court dated 27.4.1998 at Annexure A.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has discharged duties in the office of the respondent no.2 from December 1986 to January 1988 and during that period, even though the Company had declared lock out, the petitioner was called to attend the duty. The petitioner worked as a Steno Secretary to the Management of respondent no.2. Since the petitioner was not paid the amount of wages due,he filed Recovery Application No.3121 of 1990 in the Labour Court, Ahmedabad,which was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated December 2,1997 and the respondent no.2 was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 74,212.00 and in addition, an amount of Rs.250.00 by way of costs. Since all the attempts made by the petitioner to get the amount failed,the petitioner obtained recovery certificate from the Labour Court with directions to recover the amount under the provisions contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code.The petitioner issued notice to the respondent no.1 dated 11.7.1998 with a request to initiate proceedings against respondent no.2. However, the respondent no.1 failed to initiate proceedings to recover the amount and hence the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent no.1, Mr.R.K.Damor, In-charge Mamlatdar has filed an affidavit-in-reply. Reading the same, it appears that even though the recovery proceedings were initiated by respondent no.1, stand taken by the respondent no.2 Company in the said proceedings is that the Company has applied under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985("SICA" for short) being Reference No. 32 of 1998, under the provisions of section 22(1) of the said Act, no proceedings for recovery of money against the company shall lie or to be proceeded further except with the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR" for short). In substance,in pursuance of the provisions of section 22, the respondent no.1 has not proceeded further against the respondent no.2 for enforcement of the order passed by the Labour Court. It further appears that in view of the subsequent development that the respondent no.2-Company has been declared a sick unit by BIFR, the respondent no.1 has stopped proceeding further against the respondent no.2.