Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Suraj Kumar Gupta vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through The ... on 2 March, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2022
06:26:06
$~ 5 (Special Bench)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 903/2022
SH. SURAJ KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Nagarajan, Mr. Rajat
Gautam and Ms. K. Pallavi,
Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE DISTRICT
COLLECTION OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for
GNCTD. (M:8744880124)
Mr. Susheel Kumar Sharma,
Advocate for Applicant - M/s. Vishal
Retail Ltd. (M:9810106503)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 02.03.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.10280/2022 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM APPL.10278/2022 (for impleadment)
3. This is an application seeking impleadment of the Applicant-M/s. Vishal Retail Limited (hereinafter, "Management"), which is the employer of the Petitioner-Workman (hereinafter "Workman"). The order, of which enforcement is sought in the present petition filed by the Workman, was passed against M/s. Vishal Retail Limited.
4. Accordingly, without going into the contents of the application, the Applicant-M/s. Vishal Retail Limited, is impleaded as the Respondent No.2 in the present petition. Let the amended memo of parties be filed within one W.P.(C) 903/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:04.03.2022 06:26:06 week.
5. Application is disposed of.
CM APPL.10279/2022 (for stay)
6. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel appearing for the Management that the order dated 28th July, 2015 passed by the Court in CM APPL.5435/2013 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in W.P.(C) 8064/2012 titled Vishal Retail Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar Gupta was not complied with, by the Management, in view of the fact that the recall of the said order was sought by way of CM APPL.22472/2015 in W.P.(C) 8064/2012. He, thus, submits that in view of the said application being pending, the Management chose not to pay the amounts under Section 17B, as directed vide order dated 28th July, 2015.
7. In the present petition, the Petitioner is seeking enforcement of the recovery Certificate No. Imp. 16/15/ALC/SWD/1275 dated 25th February, 2021 to the tune of Rs.18,79,200/-. On the first date i.e., 14th January, 2022, the concerned SDM was directed to join the virtual proceedings. On 3rd February, 2022, SDM, Kapashera had joined the proceedings and had submitted that the final recovery notice had been issued to the Management, and accordingly, warrants of arrest would be issued if no amounts were recovered from the Management. The SDM, Kapashera was directed to take steps to give effect to the impugned recovery certificate as the same was unduly delayed.
8. At the stage when this Court is supervising the implementation of the recovery certificate, due to the apprehension that warrants of arrest may now be issued, the Management has chosen to appear in this petition seeking impleadment, as also directions as to the stay of the proceedings before the W.P.(C) 903/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:04.03.2022 06:26:06 SDM, Kapashera.
9. A perusal of the order dated 28th July, 2015 in W.P.(C) 8064/2012 shows that the same brooks no ambiguity whatsoever. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
"22. Although in the application, applicant claimed last drawn wages or minimum wages whichever is higher, however, during the course of arguments learned counsel for applicant confined his prayer to last drawn wages. In that view of the matter, the petitioner/management is directed to pay to the workman wages equivalent to the last drawn from the date of award i.e. 19th March, 2011 and to continue to pay the wages at same rate during the pendency of these proceedings on or before 7th of each month. Arrears are to be paid to the workman within six weeks from today. In the light of the ratio of Dena Bank (supra) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT, 2005 (83) DRJ 706, the respondent/workman is directed to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit that in the event of this Court deciding the writ petition in favour of the petitioner, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner any amount paid to him in terms of the present order over and above the amount he was drawing at the time of his termination within four weeks."
10. After a period of four years, the Management chose to move an application seeking recall of the said order dated 28th July, 2015. In the opinion of this Court, the pendency of the said application seeking recall of the said order cannot amount to sanction for the Management to not comply with the order under Section 17B, that is already operating. There is no stay of the said order dated 28th July, 2015. Thus, the Management was duty bound to pay the amount directed to be paid, under Section 17B to the W.P.(C) 903/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:04.03.2022 06:26:06 Workman. Admittedly, since the Management has not paid the amounts under Section 17B, the proceedings before the SDM, Kapashera shall continue. Therefore, the Management's prayer for stay is devoid of merits.
11. However, keeping in mind the fact that the Workman has had to undertake so many proceedings to seek payments, pursuant to the order dated 28th July, 2015, it is deemed appropriate to direct that if the amount in terms of the recovery certificate dated 25th February, 2021 i.e., a sum of Rs.18,79,200/- is deposited by the Management with the Registrar General of this Court, within one week, no coercive steps including arrest shall be taken by the SDM, against the office bearers or directors of the Management of M/s. Vishal Retail Limited. If the said amount is deposited, the same shall be retained in an FDR on auto-renewal mode.
12. In addition, in view of the deliberate delay in payment of amounts as directed under Section 17B, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is awarded as costs and litigation expenses to the Workman. The same shall be paid directly to the Workman in his bank account, within one week. Let the details of the Workman's bank account be provided by Mr. Nagarajan, ld. Counsel for the Workman to Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel for the Management, within two days.
13. Application for stay is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 903/2022
14. Let the records in W.P.(C) 8064/2012 titled Vishal Retail Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar Gupta, be requisitioned for the next date of hearing.
15. List on 9th March, 2022, the date already fixed, along with WP(C) 13094/2021 and WP(C) 12989/2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MARCH 2, 2022/dk/ad W.P.(C) 903/2022 Page 4 of 4