State of Punjab through Chief Engineer (Irrigation Works), Punjab v. Sh. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Aug 2009
- Bench
- K KANNAN
Outcome
Set aside
The recovery order is set aside and it
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. From the order dated 4.2.2002 it is not possible to discern any specific amount as payable. It therefore, evidentially required a calculation to be made and it is not seen from the order of recovery as to how the amount has been calculated. Though…
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Ms. Monica Chibbar Sharma, DAG., Punjab for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.1. ****
2.
3. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes K. Kannan, J(oral).
The writ petition challenges the recovery order issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Chief Engineer for Rs.4,46,481/-. This amount is purported to be in execution of the order made by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order dated 4.2.2002 does not spell out the exact amount which is due and payable to the workman but states that the workman is entitled to the scale of Rs.1200-2100 which according to the workman had been denied to him without any reason. The objections on behalf of the Government to the recovery notice of the amount of Rs. 4,46,481/- is that the amounts on the scale as fixed by the Labour Court had already been paid and the Government has filed document (Annexure P-6) that contains an extract of the details of the payments alleged to have been made by the Employer to the workman.
There is a particular procedure which is prescribed CWP No. 13716 of 2008 2 under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of money value of the benefits as follows:-
For the purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.
Operative part
From the order dated 4.2.2002 it is not possible to discern any specific amount as payable. It therefore, evidentially required a calculation to be made and it is not seen from the order of recovery as to how the amount has been calculated. Though, the workman has his own calculation statement which entitled him to such a claim, it cannot be a matter of a unilateral decision by the Labour Commissioner without a clear adjudication in the manner as contemplated under Section 33-C (3). This is all the more relevant in view of the fact that there is a dispute on question of fact as to whether the amount has been paid already in the scale of pay as indicated in the order of the Labour Court dated 4.2.2002 or any more amount is still payable. The recovery order is set aside and it shall be open to the workman to apply for computation in the manner as contemplated under Section 33-C (3) and obtain specific directions regarding any amount alleged to be due to him and the recoveries shall proceed only after such an adjudication.
The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 4, 2009 archana
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The recovery order is set aside and it
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 04 Aug 2009. The bench was K KANNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.