RAMRATAN ZURAI Vs. ASHOK CHEMICAL COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under article 226, the petitioner workman is seeking direction against the Collector for effecting recovery of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner under the award dated 21st May, 1992. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a chemist with respondent No.1 establishment. Respondent No.1 terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 23rd April, 1985. On the application made by the petitioner, the dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court being Reference (IDA) No.149 of 1986. The Labour Court by its award dated 21st May,1992 directed respondent No.1 to pay to the petitioner backwages from the date of his termination till 31st January, 1992, which worked out to a sum of Rs.28,254.66 ps. and a sum of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of reinstatement i.e., in all Rs.33,254.66 ps. The award came to be published on 22nd July, 1992 and thus became enforceable. Thereafter the petitioner made application to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for issuance of a recovery certificate. The Assistant Commissioner finally issued the certificate of recovery dated 5th February, 1993. Before issuing the certificate, the Assistant Commissioner issued the several notices to respondent No.1 and its proprietor i.e., respondent No.2. But respondent No.2 did not care to appear before the Assistant Commissioner. The certificate of recovery was thereafter forwarded to the Collector for taking necessary steps to recover the amount due under the certificate.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector is not taking any steps for recovery of the amount inspite of several reminders issued by the petitioner. In pursuance of the notice issued by this court, the Collector has appeared through the Add1. Government Pleader (AGP). The AGP informs the court that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have deposited Rs.7,000/- with the Collector and the remaining amount has been deposited in this court under the interim directions passed by this court. The amount is liable to be paid over to the petitioner as per the recovery certificate. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have objected to the payment to the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner is occupying a room in the factory of respondent No.1, which room till date the petitioner has not vacated. It is contended by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the said room was allotted to the petitioner as service contract and he ought to have vacated the room and handed over possession thereof to the respondent-company. In reply, it is stated by the petitioner that he is occupying the room as a tenant since before respondent No.1 acquired ownership of the premises. The petitioner has also pointed out that this defence was not raised by respondent Nos.1 and 2 either before the Labour court or before the Assistant Labour Commissioner before granting the certificate of recovery. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the amount deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 be released in his favour.

(3.) THE Collector and the Prothonotary and Senior Master to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. Certified copy expedited.