Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 375 (PAT)

Shakti Kumar Kar v. State Of Bihar

2003-04-02

AFTAB ALAM

body2003
Judgment 1. A certificate case being Misc. Case No. 13 of 2002 has been instituted before the Certificate Officer, Patna for realization of the money awarded by order, dated 30.12.2001 passed by the competent authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner) under the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act in Case No. BSE 2 of 2001. 2. The applicants in that case were two employees of M/s Continental Commercial Company Limited. They filed a petition under Section 28 of the Act claiming payment of their delayed wages along with compensation. The claim application was filed against the company and three of its officers, namely, Director Incharge, General Manager Commercial and the Junior Executive, the last named being the petitioner before this Court. This claim was allowed by the competent authority by order, dated 30.12.2001. By this Order, he directed for payment of Rs. 65.793.50 along with five times compensation amounting to Rs. 3,94,761/- to one of the applicants and delayed wages of Rs. 61,686.95 along with five times compensation amounting to Rs. 3,08,434.75 to the other. Though the order was ex parte, later on it undeniably came within the knowledge of the opp. party, the employers. But, still no steps were taken to challenge it. 3. As no payments were made as directed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner a certificate proceeding was initiated for recovery of the amounts in terms of the order. The certificate case was naturally instituted against all the four persons who were impleaded as opp. parties in the case under the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act. The first certificate debtor is the company itself while the other two certificate debtors are the high officials of the company, residing at Calcutta. The 4th certificate debtor, that is, the petitioner being the junior most of the three officers resides in Patna and he was, thus, the most easily available of the four judgment debtors. For this reason alone, it appears that he has been picked out for being proceeded against and being subjected to all coercive measures for the recovery of the amount, This, to my mind, is inequitable, unfair and unjust. 4. For this reason alone, it appears that he has been picked out for being proceeded against and being subjected to all coercive measures for the recovery of the amount, This, to my mind, is inequitable, unfair and unjust. 4. From the facts and circumstances as noted above, it is evident that though the petitioner might be covered by the definition of employer within the meaning of Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, the claim of the applicant employee was in reality against the company and it is the company and its top officials who have a greater liability to pay the money than the petitioner who was the junior most officer in the company. It is also stated on his behalf that since then the company has closed its Patna office and the petitioner, not unlike the two applicants, has himself become jobless. 5. In these facts and circumstances, to my mind, it would be appropriate for the Certificate Officer to proceed against the company and the other two certificate debtors, the top officials of the company, rather, than single out the petitioner for the recovery of the loan. The Certificate Officer is, therefore, directed to stay the coercive measures being taken against the petitioner till such time as he is able to secure the attendance of the other two certificate debtors in this case or to recover the requisition money by attachment and sale of the properties of the company that may lie within his territorial jurisdiction. Once the attendance of the other two top officials of the company is secured, the Certificate Officer will take appropriate steps for the recovery of the requisition amount. 6. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.