Shri Avdhesh Pandey vs Government of N.C.T. and Others

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—The petitioner, Shri Avdesh Pandey, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to perform their statutory duties to secure the implementation of the award dated 31.08.2002 passed in his favour by the Labour Court No. VIII in ID No. 139/1999.

Heard.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 3 as a Press Man on monthly wages of Rs. 1700/- and was suddenly terminated on 29.11.1998. He raised an industrial dispute in regard to his termination which was registered as ID No. 139/1999 in which he succeeded and the Industrial Adjudicator vide award dated 31.08.2002 directed his reinstatement with full back wages. Recovery certificate dated 04.05.2006 pursuant to the above award was issued by the Labour Department in the Government of NCT of Delhi and was sent to the District Collector (South East), Kapashera, for execution. The said recovery certificate remained unexecuted.

Later on, the petitioner informed the District Collector (South East), Kapashera that the management has shifted its establishment from Delhi to Gurgaon and gave the Gurgaon address of the management to the District Collector (South East). In view of shifting by the management from Delhi to Gurgaon, the recovery certificate was transferred by District Collector (South East), Kapashera, Delhi for execution to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana vide order dated 20.09.2007 which is at page 21 of the Paper Book.

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that his client shall take steps for execution of the recovery certificate against the management in Gurgaon as per law and he does not want to press this writ petition in relation to recovery in terms of the recovery certificate sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana. However, Mr. Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the management has committed a default in not implementing the award in question in the jurisdiction of the Court, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 can at least initiate the prosecution against the management in Delhi though it had shifted its business to Gurgaon. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be legal and has to be accepted.

Ms. Latika Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 has very fairly submitted that her clients will take necessary steps for initiating the prosecution against the management within such time as may be granted to them by this Court.

In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with directions to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to take required steps for initiating the prosecution against the management (respondent No. 3) in terms of provisions contained in Section 25U and T read with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from today.

Order Dasti to counsel for both the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.