Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2038 (PNJ)

P. K. Singhi v. State of Haryana

2008-12-04

PERMOD KOHLI

body2008
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. (Oral):- This order will dispose of CWP Nos.6517 of 1988 and 6830 of 1989 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Cable Works (India) Ltd., Plot No.71, Sector 25, Faridabad incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It has been alleged that due to certain financial problems, the Company was closed after serving closure notice on 28.12.1984. At the time of closure, numerous workmen were employed and they were served with the notice of termination of their services. 12 workmen filed their claim under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for an amount of Rs 47,000/- in total before the Labour Court, Faridabad who decided the same vide its order dated 12.12.1985 whereunder certain claims of these workmen were calculated for recovery. These claims are sought to be recovered from the personal property of the petitioner who is the Managing Director of the Company. It is alleged that respondent no.3 visited the residence of the petitioner at A-1, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for attachment of all the personal properties of the petitioner to recover the amount. In CWP No.6830 of 1989, the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has been questioned whereby the recovery is being sought to be effected from the personal property of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly filed the present petitions challenging the action of the respondents. 3. In the reply filed, the respondent-State has justified the action by stating that the petitioner being the Managing Director of the Company is responsible for all acts of omission and commission of the Company. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot escape the liability towards the payment of the dues to the workmen in whose favour the liability has been determined by the Labour Court and with a view to justify the action, reliance is placed under Sections 32 and 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Sections 67 and 149 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 4. Mr.Monga, learned counsel for the State has justified the action by referring to Section 33C (1) (2) (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sections 67 and 149 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 4. Mr.Monga, learned counsel for the State has justified the action by referring to Section 33C (1) (2) (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sections 67 and 149 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the appropriate government to recover the money payable to a workman from an employer under the settlement or an award under the provisions of the Act by issuing appropriate certificate to the Collector to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Sub Section (2) of Section 33C confers jurisdiction upon the Labour Court to compute the money or benefits which are capable of being computed in terms of money receivable by the workmen. Sub Section (4) of Section 33 C further provides that the decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded to the appropriate government and the amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided under sub-section (1) which means that it can be recovered as arrears of land revenue through the agency of Collector. Section 67 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 lays down various modes of effecting recovery which, inter alia, includes the proceedings against the immovable property of the defaulter. Section 149 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act further empowers a Revenue Officer to impose fine which may extend upto Rs.50/-, if a person required by summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from a Revenue Officer to attend at a certain time and place within the limits of the estate in which he ordinarily resides, or in which he holds or cultivates land, fails to comply with the requisition. Further reference is made to Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides for punishment to the persons mentioned therein in case an offence is committed by a Company and such persons are director, manager, secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the management of the Company. Based upon the aforesaid provisions, it is contended that the Managing Director is concerned with the management of the Company and thus recovery is liable to be effected from his personal property. 5. After hearing Mr. Monga at length and conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, the contention of the respondents does not seem to be substantiated by law. 5. After hearing Mr. Monga at length and conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, the contention of the respondents does not seem to be substantiated by law. Though Section 33C (1) (2) (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for mode of recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue, but this recovery is permissible against the employer. It is not in dispute that the Company was the employer of the workmen. In so far as the reliance placed upon Section 149 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is concerned, these two sections deal with the offences committed by a person for not responding to the summons, notices, order or requisition of the revenue Officials by any person who may be the Incharge of the management of the Company, including Managing Director. But these Sections, by no stretch of imagination, can mean that such Managing Director or Incharge of the Company is personally liable to pay any amount due against the Company other than fine and the same can be recovered from the person or property of the Managing Director/Incharge of the Company, particularly when Company is employer and the employee is entitled to recover the amount from the assets of the Company. In the totality of the circumstances, the action of the respondents, is totally illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and without any sanction of law. These petitions accordingly succeed and the respondents are directed not to effect any recovery from the personal property of the petitioner. However, the respondents are at liberty to recover any amount under the award including under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act from any property/assets of the Company, namely, M/s Cable Works (India) Ltd., Plot No.71, Sector 25, Faridabad. Disposed of. A copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file. --------------