1. Writ petition is directed against the recovery certificate dated 21.10.1991 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Meerut Region, Meerut on an application filed by respondent workman under Section 6-H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1947") wherein he had claimed only Rs.1,00,313/- the amount payable to him from 1986 to 1990. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, however, has issued recovery certificate, impugned in this writ petition, for Rs.1,93,515/-.
2. Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever amount due to the workman concerned under the award dated 09.3.1990 in Adjudication Case No.148 of 1988 was already paid to the workman concerned and this was detailed in the reply submitted by the petitioner-employer but without looking into the reply given by the employer, Deputy Labour Commissioner in a mechanical manner has issued recovery certificate and that too for a sum more than the amount actually claimed by the workman.
3. A perusal of workman's application dated 20th February, 1991, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, it is evident that the workman claimed that a sum of Rs.1,70,500/- became due to him from 1986 to 1990 against which he had received Rs.70,187/- and therefore remaining unpaid amount of Rs.1,00,313/-, which he claimed, is due to him. The petitioner-employer in their reply, copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, has clearly shown that whatever amount due to the workman was already paid and the amount he has claimed, no basis thereof has been given and the said amount was not payable to him. Without looking into the dispute about actual claim set up by the workman, in a mechanical manner and without application of mind the Deputy Labour Commissioner has issued recovery certificate which is more than the amount actually claimed by the workman and recovery certificate of such an amount could not have been issued. The said recovery certificate is ex facie illegal and cannot sustain.
4. It is true that Section 6-H(1) of Act 1947 is in the nature of execution but it presupposes an amount due. Whenever there is dispute as to whether an amount is due or not or about the quantum of such amount, the authority concerned cannot treat the claim of workman to be sacrosanct for issuing recovery certificate but has to apply its mind and record a finding that the amount is due after considering the case set up by the employer in this regard and it is under an obligation in such a circumstance to pass a speaking order determining as to what is an amount due for which recovery certificate has to be issued. It a mechanical manner it cannot issue a recovery certificate for an amount claimed by the workman particularly when correctness of quantum and the claim set up by the workman is disputed by the employer otherwise it would amount to issuing a recovery certificate ex parte without considering the claim of the other side on merits. A statutory authority cannot be permitted to proceed in such a matter as that would amount to misuse of power and would result in travesty of justice.
5. The writ petition is allowed. The recovery certificate dated 21.10.1991 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Meerut Region, Meerut is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut to reconsider the matter and first of all he will decide the question whether any amount is due and payable to the workman concerned and only thereafter after passing the speaking order on this aspect, shall issue recovery certificate, if any required.
Order Date :- 17.4.2012 KA