R. R. MISRA J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a recovery certificate of Rs. 74,879. 55 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition abusing the process of the Court and by filing false affidavit he has succeeded in securing an ad interim order from this Court to the great prejudice to the opposite parties. Brief facts of the case are as follows : ( 2 ) THE petitioner, M/s. Hapur Sahkari Kraya Vikrya Samiti Ltd. , hapur, is a Co-operative Society and runs a Cold Storage at Hapur in the district of Ghaziabad. Sri Ajit Singh, son of Sri Bhopal Singh, was employed as an accountant in the said Society on March 12, 1975 and he was made permanent from July, 1975. It was alleged that due to carelessness of Sri Ajit Singh, the respondent No. 3, a chamber of the Cold Storage was damaged on account of overloading. Consequently certain charges were levelled against him. The said charges were denied by Sri Ajit Singh but the Management decided to terminate the service of Sri Ajit Singh with effect from July 16, 1979. ( 3 ) THEREUPON, Sri Ajit Singh, the respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute in regard to termination of his services. The State Government referred the case for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad and ultimately the Labour Court made an award against the petitioner on april 13, 1987. It was found that the services of Sri Ajit Singh have been wrongly terminated with effect from July 16, 1979 and that Sri Ajit Singh is entitled to be reinstated with all the back wages. Against the said award admittedly a writ petition was filed in this Court, which was dismissed on August 12, 1988 on the finding that there was no infirmity in the impugned award so as to call any interference by this Court. Before the dismissal of the said writ petition by this Court vide its order dated July 12, 1988, sri Ajit Singh filed a claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, ghaziabad, under Section 6-H (i) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of his back wages. As a result thereof, the Deputy Labour commissioner had vide his Order dated December 5, 1988 worked out demand of Rs. 74,879. As a result thereof, the Deputy Labour commissioner had vide his Order dated December 5, 1988 worked out demand of Rs. 74,879. 55 p. payable on that dale by the petitioner to Sri ajit Singh. Since the said amount was not paid by the petitioner, the same became recoverable against the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and accordingly a citation dated December 21, 1988 called upon the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount to Sri Ajit Singh or to show cause on December 28, 1988 was issued. True copies of the aforesaid order of the Deputy labour Commissioner and the citation have been as annexures Nos. 4 and 5 to the present writ petition. It is interesting to note that in the grounds as well as in the relief prayed for in the writ petition the aforesaid award has been challenged as without jurisdiction. Although, the petitioner and his pairokar, Sri D. D. Sharma, who is the Secretary of the petitioner, has filed an affidavit in support of the present writ petition knowing it fully well that the earlier writ petition against the same award has been dismissed by this Court summarily on August 12, 1988. The other relief prayed for the present writ petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the said order of the Deputy labour Commissioner as well as the award dated April 13, 1987. From a perusal of the writ petition it is clear that it was specilically alleged therein that the impugned order dated December 5, 1988 had been passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. This has been speciiically mentioned in paragraph 14 of the writ petition which has been veriiied in the affidavit by Sri D. D. Sharma, the Secretary and the pairokar of the petitioner on the basis of record. The result was that the writ petition was admitted by this Court on March 31, 1989 and an ad interim order was passed staying the operation of the order dated December 5, 1988 until further orders. A counter affidavit has now been tiled by Sri Ajit Singh in the writ petitio n. in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it has been specitically stated that full opportunity was provided to the petitioner by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. A counter affidavit has now been tiled by Sri Ajit Singh in the writ petitio n. in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it has been specitically stated that full opportunity was provided to the petitioner by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. It has also been stated in paragraph 17 of the said counter-affidavit as follows :"9. That respondent No. 3 has also filed claim for recovery of wages and recovery proceeding under Section 6-H (i) of U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 has been initiated. "it has also been averred in the counter-affidavit that the Deputy Labour commissioner had written letter dated August 10, 1987 to the petitioner and also a letter dated May 25, 1988 fixing June 4, 1988 that a claim under section 6-H (i) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been made by sri Ajit Singh and that the petitioner appeared in response thereof on the said date to show cause as to why the sum of Rs. 80,265/- as claimed by Sri Ajit singh be not paid to Sri Ajit Singh by the petitioner and in default thereof the same shall not be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Thereafter, in paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit the following facts have been stated :"21. That the parties appeared before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on July 28, 1988, the date fixed August 8, 1988 was fixed by the consent of the parties. On August 8, 1988 both the parties were present. By the agreement of the parties, September 1, 1988 was fixed. On August 8, 1989 the authority letter of the petitioner authorising Sri Om Niwas Gupta Accountant as authorised representative was filed. The representative of the petitioner also filed an application dated August 8,1988 requesting for another date. The photo copies of these letters are being filed herewith and are being marked as Annexure CA-3 and CA-4 respectively to this affidavit. The true copy of the order-sheet dated July 28, 1988 and august 8, 1988 is being filed herewith and is being marked as annexure CA-5 to this affidavit. "it has further been averred in the counter-affidavit that although the parties were present before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, again the representative of the petitioner sought time for filing objection which was not granted and recovery certificate was ordered to be issued on the materials filed by Sri Ajit Singii. "it has further been averred in the counter-affidavit that although the parties were present before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, again the representative of the petitioner sought time for filing objection which was not granted and recovery certificate was ordered to be issued on the materials filed by Sri Ajit Singii. A true copy of the order-sheet dated September 1, 1988 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure ca-6 to the counter-aifidavit. Sri Ajit Singh has contended in his counter-affidavit that it has been falsely averred on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner before issuing the recovery certificate and thai the petitioner has committed perjury and is liable to be prosecuted for she same. It has also been stated in paragraph 25 of the couuter-aifidavit that the petitioner has not paid a single paisa to Sri Ajit singh since after termination of his services on July 16, 1979 i. e. , for last ten years and that he is on the verge of starvation. It has further been stated in paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit that although joining report of the deponent (Sri Ajit Singh) has been received in the office of the petitioner but he is not permitted to join and is being harrassed and that on the basis of the false affidavit filed in this case the petitioner has succeeded in obtaining the admission of the writ petition and aiso in ootaining an ad interim order on march 31, 1989. A copy of the said counter-affidavit was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner as early as on May 1, 1989, Thereafter as prayed for by the learned counsel fur the petitioner tares w,eks time was allowed by the Court on November 1, 1989 to me a rejoinder-affidavit. Again on March 29, 1990 a request for adjournment for filing the re-joinder-affidavit was made before the Court. Again on April 23, 1990 learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment for filing the rejoinder-affidavit which was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties on the ground that the petitioner was granted sufficient time to file the rejoinder-affidavit but the same has not deliberately been filed in order to harass Sri Ajit Singh, the opposite party and that further request for further adjournment to file the rejoinder-affidavit is not bona fide. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and the materials on record, the Court did not grant any further time for filing the rejoinder-affidavit to the petitioner. ( 4 ) AFTER heating the learned counsel for the parties and alter goiag through the record it appears that since the petitioner has filed false affidavit in the writ petition to the effect that no opportunity was given by the Deputy labour Commissioner and the counter-affidavit also sets out that various opportunities were provided to the petitioner, as I have also demonstrated above, ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to file the rejoinder-affidavit inasmuch as a copy of the counter-affidavit was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner as early as on May 1, 1989 but the petitioner has not yet filed any rejoinder-affidavit deliberately which has also served the purpose of the petitioner to linger on the payment of the dues to Sri Ajit singh, the opposite party No. 3, as the petitioner has already obtained an ad interim order dated March 31, 1989 from this Court. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case was taken up for hearing by this Court on April 25, 1990 and the learned cewnsel for the petitioner was apprised with the facts mentioned in the counter-affidavit. He then submitted that his argument is confined only to the proceedings under Section 6-H (1) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he is pressing only grounds No. 2 and 3 of the present writ petition, which relate to the fact that no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, The other grounds of challenge from to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Labour commissioner were specifically abandoned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing the sole submission made on behalf of the petitioner before this Court was that in this case no "effective" opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. From a perusal of the writ petition, however, I find that no such factual averment has been made in the writ petition. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing the sole submission made on behalf of the petitioner before this Court was that in this case no "effective" opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. From a perusal of the writ petition, however, I find that no such factual averment has been made in the writ petition. On the other hand, as I have demonstrated above, the sheet-anchor of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no opportunity at all was given to the petitioner by the Deputy Labour commissioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that although various opportunities were given to the petitioner by the Deputy labour Commissioner, yet the petitioner ought to have been given more opportunities and not doing so by the Deputy Labour Commissioner amounts to a refusal of elfective opportunity to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts as well as the averments made in the counter-affidavit which have been extracted and mentioned by me above, I find that the said sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has got no substance. On the other hand, admittedly the petitioner has been given various opportunities by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the averment made in the writ petition to the effect that no opportunity was given to the petitioner is false. The affidavit dated January 1, 1989 filed by Shri D. D, Sharma in support of the present writ petition is also false in this regard Further, a copy of the application under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code moved on behalf of sri Ajit Singh on May 2, 1989 was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner as early as on May 23, 1989 filed by Sri D. D. Sharma in support of the present writ petition hearing. I, therefore, after making a preliminary enquiry into the matter as contemplated by the provisions of Section 340 criminal Procedure Code, on the facts stated above, hold that Sri D. D. Sharma, the Secretary of the petitioner, has filed a false affidavit in support of the writ petition and has committed an offence as contemplated by the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The registrar of the Court is accordingly directed to file a complaint against Sri d. D. Sharma, the Secretary of the petitioner, before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction in the matter. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs of rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) payable to Sri Ajit Singh, the Respondent no. 3. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, out of this costs of Rs. 1,000/-, Sri D. D. Sharma, the Secretary of the petitioner will personally pay the costs of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) to Sri Ajit singh, the respondent No. 3. Considering the special facts of this case, it is also expedient and necessary in the interest oi justice to direct the petitioner to pay the amount due to Sri Ajit Singh, the opposite party No. 3, as mentioned in the citation dated December 21, 1988, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, alongwith interest at the rate of rs. 9% per annum from the date of citation within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of this judgment on the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .