AMAR JYOTI PICTURE PALACE Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, employers M/S. Amar Jyoti Picture Palace have prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.12.1998, Citation dated 24.12.1998 and the order dated 20.2.1999, Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively to the petition. A perusal of Annexures 1, 2 and 3 will demonstrate that the order dated 14.12.1998 is an order passed by the appropriate authority for the recovery of a sum of 3,21,189=00 (rupees three lacs twenty one thousand one hundred eighty nine) as arrears of land revenue pursuance to the application in G.R.R.D. No. 66 of 1998. This recovery certificate dated 14.12.1998 was issued by the competent authority, namely, Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur to the district Magistrate, Deoria for the recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner-employers. Annexure-2 to the petition is the Citation issued by the Tehsildar concerned for the recovery of the said amount under the provisions of Section 280 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 from the petitioner employer, Annexure-3 is an order dated 20.2.1999 whereby Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur has rejected as application of the petitioner-employers of review of the order for recovery. The petitioner's case that the said notice of recovery and the recovery certificate pursuance there to have been issued in exercise of powers under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The further contention of the petitioner employers before the Labour Commissioner as well as before this Court is that the order of recovery can be passed by the competent authority exercising the powers under Section 33-C (1) only with regard to such amount which is not disputed and since in the present case the employers have disputed the amount sought for to be recovered from the employers, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has erred in law in issuing the recovery certificate, It is admitted case of the petitioner-employers that they have closed down their establishment and thus the findings arrived at by the Deputy Labour, Commissioner that employers are liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the ready reference the provision of Section 25-FFF are reproduced below ;

(2.) The present recovery certificate has been issued under the provisions of Section 33-C (1) of the Act. Reading the provisions referred to above, there is no doubt that for the first time the employers-have disputed the number of employees that they have filed then review application. In these circumstances, even assuming that there was some dispute, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not enter into the disputed question of fact and arrive at a different conclusion than what has already been arrived at by the competent authority referred to above. The employers have also annexed number of documents purporting to the notice alleged to have been issued by the workmen of the establishment but neither there is any evidence on record, nor any such evidence has been placed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, competent authority concerned that the said notice has ever been served on the employees of the establishment. On the contrary, it is a case of the respondents which clearly demonstrates that the employee concerned has refused to accept the notice. Closure of an establishment is no doubt a right vested with the employer but the said right is not unfettered right. It is subject to the condition that is to be fulfilled by the employer under the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the recovery certificate, which has been already issued against the petitioner-employers. The employers have already filed a review petition which has also been rejected and after the rejection of the review petition, it is not open to the employers to raise the dispute as is being sought to be raised before this Court for exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent-workmen has referred to the provisions of U.P. Conciliation Order issued by State of U.P. in exercise of power under clause (d) of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Clause 2 of the U.P. Conciliation Order provides. 'Reference of disputes to Conciliation Board' which also provides the reference by the employers but no such reference has been made by the employers in the present case. Be that as it may be for the reasons stated above I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned recovery, the writ petition therefore is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.