ORDER 1. Pursuant to a dispute between the respondent Continental Commercial Company Ltd. (for short CCCL’), the impugned award came to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 6th July, 2002, holding that the workman is entitled to wages from 1st August, 1995. Other directions were also given to the Management of CCCL, in this behalf. 2. With a view to having the award implemented, the respondent workman moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (implementation cell), i.e.respondent No. 3. In connection with the same, the respondent workman also gave an affidavit stating that the new name of the management is, “Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.”, 39-49, Regal Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. On the basis of this affidavit, the ALO issued a notice to the petitioner on 14th May, 2004, alleging that the aforesaid award dated 6th July, 2002, passed by the Labour Tribunal has remained unimplemented. In reply, it was pointed out by the petitioner that the affidavit filed by the respondent workman is incorrect, inasmuch as the respondent was never employed by the petitioner and that he remained the employee of CCCL at all times. It was also pointed out that the CCCL has been directed to be wound up by the High Court of Calcutta by an order passed on 6th January, 2004 and the Official Liquidator has been appointed as the liquidator of that company who has also taken over possession of all the properties thereof, on 20th April, 2004. It was further pointed out that the winding up of CCCL was ordered on a petition moved by the petitioner itself on the ground that an admitted debt of Rs. 1,77,85,112/- had remained outstanding and unpaid by CCCL to the petitioner. The relevant address of the Official Liquidator who had been appointed and had taken over all the assets and properties of CCCL in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, was also disclosed to the implementation cell of the third respondent. 3. This reply was given to the third respondent on 18th June, 2004. On 29th November, 2006, pursuant to another notice issued by the third respondent, the petitioner once again sent a similar response pointing out clearly that the CCCL is a separate juristic entity that has gone under liquidation and that the petitioner has no liability to pay the debts of the CCCL. 4. On 29th November, 2006, pursuant to another notice issued by the third respondent, the petitioner once again sent a similar response pointing out clearly that the CCCL is a separate juristic entity that has gone under liquidation and that the petitioner has no liability to pay the debts of the CCCL. 4. Despite these communications, the third respondent issued the impugned communication dated 30th October, 2008, directing recovery to be ‘made from the petitioner since the respondent workman had stated on affidavit that the new name of the CCCL is The Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.’ A demand was also raised under Section 137 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, dated 17th January, 2009 against the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,30,616/- within seven days thereof. Consequently, the petitioner moved this Court praying that the aforesaid communication dated 30th October, 2008, as also the demand dated 17th January, 2009, be quashed. 5. Counsel for the respondent is unable to sustain the impugned communication or demand either on facts or law since, admittedly, the claim of the respondent was against CCCL and the relevant award dated 6th July, 2002 was also passed against CCCL. The latter is a separate legal entity duly incorporated under the Companies Act. 6. It was feebly sought to be contended that with regard to some other workers of CCCL, the petitioner had made some payments by way of a settlement with them, and consequently, the petitioners were liable to pay the respondent also under the impugned award. In this context, the respondent relies on a settlement between the Peerless Developers Ltd. and four other workmen of CCCL, namely, Dilip Kumar Sheet, Mool Chand, Dilip Chand and Rajesh Kumar Yadav, dated 23rd January, 2004. Admittedly, Peerless Developers Ltd., who had entered into the said agreement, is a part of the group of companies of the petitioner. However, the said settlement appears to have come about because of certain objections raised by some workers of CCCL to its being wound up on the petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta. These workers were in possession of valuable premises of CCCL, which would otherwise have come into the hands of the official liquidator and become available for paying off the debts of the company. These workers were in possession of valuable premises of CCCL, which would otherwise have come into the hands of the official liquidator and become available for paying off the debts of the company. Since the debt owed by CCCL to the petitioner was substantial, hence the petitioner considered it prudent to itself enter into a settlement with the workers to persuade them to relinquish their possession of the said premises and hand over the same to the Official Liquidator. It was in these circumstances, and for this purpose, that the aforesaid settlement came about. This cannot, and does not, mean that the management or the debts and liabilities of CCCL to its creditors and workers have been in any way taken over by the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the respondent has not been able to displace this contention either in fact or in law. 8. It appears that the correct factual and legal position was clearly set down by the petitioner in its reply dated 18th June, 2004 and again in its communication dated 29th November, 2006 with regard to the status of CCCL and also the fact that it was not liable in any way for the dues of CCCL. It was also brought out that the petitioner and the CCCL are separate entities. Despite all this having been done, it is evident that no effort was made by the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner (implementation cell) to proceed in the matter with the sense of responsibility after applying its mind to the facts disclosed. As a result, not only has the petitioner been put to repeated harassment ever since the year 2004, the workman also has been kept out of his dues for all this time since the required claim has not been lodged before the Official Liquidator for all these years. It, is also not known as to what is the fate of the winding up proceedings by this time. It is also likely that during all these years, the Official Liquidator may have admitted other claims of a lower priority, and even paid them out of the assets of the CCCL, whilst the respondent workman was left pursuing the wrong party. It is also likely that during all these years, the Official Liquidator may have admitted other claims of a lower priority, and even paid them out of the assets of the CCCL, whilst the respondent workman was left pursuing the wrong party. No doubt, even the workman is partly to be blamed for this situation, since it was he who gave the relevant affidavit stating that the petitioner had taken over the CCCL which prompted the ALO to initiate proceedings against the petitioner, but still, it was the bounden duty of the ALO (implementation cell), i.e. the third respondent herein, to ensure that the matters proceed according to law and that the petitioner is not put to any unnecessary harassment. 9. Under the circumstances, while it is open to the third respondent to take further steps recording to law to enable a claim to be lodged before the Official Liquidator appointed by the Calcutta High Court in CP No. 376/2000, this Court deprecates the conduct and manner in which the learned ALO has dealt with the matter. It would be open to the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi, to take such action as he considers fit to ensure that, the matters are not dealt with in such a cursory manner in future. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30th October, 2008 issued by the implementation cell of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, as well as the demand under Section 137 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954; dated 17th January, 2009 are quashed and set aside. It would be however open to the respondent to raise his claim before the Official Liquidator, High Court of Calcutta, who is stated to have taken over the assets of CCCL, as per law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. CM No.1904 of 2009 In view of the orders passed in the main writ petition, this application is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. Writ Petition disposed of.