High CourtsSingle Bench

Khushal Mani vs Collector and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 July 2004 · Citation: (2005) 106 FLR 1196

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Tandon, J
RESULT
Allowed

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 689 words

Rajesh Tandon, J.—By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 26.8.2002 issued by the respondent No. 2.

2.

Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are the workmen, who were employed as daily wager. Petitioners have raised an industrial dispute and claimed permanent status with all benefits. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed an order regularising the petitioners and other workmen with all benefits of permanent employee w.e.f. 1st October, 1988. An award to that effect was passed on 28.3.1995. The said award was challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the Allahabad High Court in writ petition No. 12331 of 1996. On 13th February, 1998, the said writ petition was dismissed and the award was confirmed.

3.

Thereafter, respondent No. 3 approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court and has challenged the award dated 28.31995 as well as the judgment dated 13.2.1998 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 1999. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP on 29th October, 1999 and confirmed the award dated 28.3.1995.

4.

The grievance of the petitioners is that after confirmation of the award dated 28.3.1995 by the Hon''ble Apex Court, when the respondent No. 3 did not comply the same, the petitioners filed an application u/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for implementation of the award. Thereafter, an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, which was allowed on 30.8.2001.

5.

Further, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun for implementation of the order dated 30.8.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun and the respondent No. 2 issued a recovery certificate amounting to Rs. 1,38,520/- to the respondent No. 1 i.e. The Collector, Uttarkashi and the Tehsildar of Tehsil by order dated 26 8.2002. But till today the compliance of the order of the Hon''ble Apex Court has not been made. Even when the recovery certificate was issued, the same remained unrecovered.

6.

Mr. Copal Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the workmen are not getting the; arrears of wages according to the recovery certificate issued by respondent No. 1, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

After considering the entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the award having been confirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the leave petition was dismissed and the recovery certificate for payment of arrears of wages having been issued, there is no rhyme or reason not to pay the amount to the petitioners. It is well known Latin Maxim as held in 1994 (2) ARC 79 in the case of Ashtosh Shrotriya v. Rais Uddin that it is the duty of a good Judge to see that the judgment is executed without delay and further to put an end to litigation so that the suit may not grow.

8.

There is another maxim "Boni judicis est judicium sine dilatcone mendare execution" which connotes that it is the duty of a good Judge to cause judgment to be executed without delay. There is yet another maxim "Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" which connotes that a good Judge will, if necessary, extend the limits of his jurisdiction to the advancement of substantial justice. There is also a maxim "Boni judicis est lites dirimere ne lis exlitc evitus et interest reipublicae ut sint finess litium", which connotes that it is the duty of a good Judge to put an end to litigation so that suit may not grow out of suit.

9.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay the wages to the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 26.8.2002 within a period of six weeks from today. No order as to costs.