Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 150 (UTT)

SANJAY GARG v. COLLECTOR HARIDWAR

2020-02-27

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The Presiding Officer i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner, exercising his powers under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has made a determination of payable wages to the private respondent, in PWA Case 16 of 2016, Paltu Ram v. Sanjay Garg and Another, by rendering a judgement/award on 22nd November 2016, whereby the total liability, which has been determined payable as against the petitioner, to the private respondent has been determined to be the total illegal deduction made as well as the damages payable thereto i.e. totalling to Rs. 8,61,924/-. Ultimately, the said determination, which was made by the learned Presiding Officer adjudicating it is alleged by the petitioner to be an ex parte, the petitioner is said to have filed an application before the Presiding Officer for setting aside the ex parte determination made on 22nd November 2016. 2. It is also an admitted case and also as apparent from the record also that the challenge to the determination made on 22nd November 2016, in the said case, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 432 of 2017. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing an interim order dated 2nd March, 2017, had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% amount of the total liability settled by the adjudication made on 22nd November 2016. The presumption would be that the petitioner must have deposited 50% of the total amount in compliance thereof to the interim order. But, later on in accordance with the opinion extended to the petitioner, he had on his own violation got the writ petition April 2019. Consequent thereto, the amount thus deposited by the petitioner was directed to be refunded to the petitioner. 3. On the dismissal of the writ petition, quite obviously the determination as made by the Presiding Officer, under the Payment of Wages Act dated 22nd November 2016 had attained finality and was found to be put to execution and as a consequence thereto, the Tehsildar has issued the impugned recovery citation on 12th February 2020, directing to recover the amount of Rs. 8,61,924/- from the petitioner. 4. 8,61,924/- from the petitioner. 4. This action taken for recovery of the amount as determined on 22nd November 2016, was quite obviously justifiable for the reason being that the determination made by the Presiding Officer on 22nd November 2016 has attained finality with the dismissal of the writ petition by the petitioner on 24th April 2019, the subsequent recovery proceeding was a following consequence to it. 5. The petitioner in the writ petition has pleaded that on account of his certain physical disability and the treatment which the petitioner is already undergoing, since he is as of now not in a profitable engagement, he is suffering certain financial crisis, hence he is not in a position to meet the liability randomly as sought to be recovered by the impugned recovery citation under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. Though this Court is not interfering on the merits of the matter in the writ petition; but at the end of the argument and balance equities, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits and prayed for that taking a sympathetic view after considering the ailment which the petitioner is presently suffering; he may be granted a reasonable time to deposit the amount before the Presiding Officer under the Payment of Wages Act. 7. Considering the physical incapacity of the petitioner, and determination already made which attained finality, this writ petition is being dismissed, subject to the above liberty; that the amount sought to be recovered in pursuance to the impugned order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 23rd January 2020, and the consequential recovery citation dated 12th February 2020, the petitioner would deposit the entire amount before the learned Presiding Officer under the Payment of Wages Act within a period of three months from today. If the said payment is made within the said time period, the coercive action would be kept suspended till the actual payment is made or for a maximum period of three months from today, as directed. 8. Subject to the above exceptions, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.