Court quashed recovery citation issued under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act holding it unsustainable due to principle of double jeopardy as petitioner had already deposited amount per High Court order.
Impugned recovery citation dated 22.08.2006 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1749 of 2006(M/S)
Kendriya Upbhokta Sahakari Bhandar, Uttarkashi Ltd. Through its Secretary, Y.P.S. Bisht ………Petitioner
versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and others.
. …Respondents
Mr. Kailash Chandra Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
The respondent no.4 had instituted the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act and had prayed for the arrears of wages in May 1990 w.e.f. from January 1991 to March 1991 along with annual increment and also arrears of wages from April 1991 to February 1995 may be paid.
2
though the same were the interim orders, a direction was issued that he will not be reverted from the post of Accountant and the reversion order dated 03.07.1999 was kept in abeyance and thus he prayed for that since 21.03.1995, he has been working as an Accountant he may be given the arrears. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 24.11.1998 calculating the arrears to be Rs. 46,248.40/- and a direction was issued that the same may be remitted within a period of one month and also the salary which has not been remitted from June 1991. The petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 1,74,720/- and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Against this order the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 42440 of 1998 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in which, there was an interim order passed whereby the Allahabad High Court directed that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 1,74,720/- within a period of one month. Out of the total deposit 25% of the amount was to be paid to the respondent no.2 i.e. respondent no.4 in the present writ petition, rest was to be invested in the Nationalized Bank and the deposits thus made shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition.
3
compliance of the said order and having the deposits made according to the petitioner nothing was required to be remitted at their behest. Although, none for the respondents has appeared to controvert the plea of the petitioner that in pursuance of that order passed by the Hon’ble High Court he has deposited that amount as directed by the interim order dated 14.12.1998. Hence, this plea of deposit having been made by the petitioner would be admitted to be as it is and would be taken as to be true in the absence of the same having being controverted.
4
double jeopard and hence this is unsustainable, in these circumstances, and exclusively based upon the pleadings and the argument of the counsel of the petitioner that the amount has already been paid.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 26.07.2017
Nahid
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a recovery citation issued under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act after the petitioner deposited amount as per interim order of Allahabad High Court is sustainable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kendriya Upbhokta Sahakari Bhandar, Uttarkashi Ltd. Through its Secretary, Y.P.S. Bisht
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun
others
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
