Skip to content


North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.shakuntala and Anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantNorth Delhi Municipal Corporation
RespondentShakuntala and Anr.
Excerpt:
.....and w.p.(c) 10465/2016 & cm no.41016/2016 these petitions have been filed challenging the recovery proceedings 1. dated 01.02.2016 initiated by respondent no.2 pursuant to an award having been passed on 01.05.2015 by the learned labour court in industrial dispute no.156/2014.2. ms. biji rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that no monies are payable to the respondents through the recovery proceedings, as per the aforesaid award dated 01.05.2015, hence, the same are mis-directed and vitiated. she submits that the award itself only directs payment of such monies as may be due. since the award has not specified the exact amount, then the amounts cannot be computed under the recovery proceedings which are more in the nature of a cyclostyled letter being.....
Judgment:

$~10 & 14 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:

07. 11.2016 + W.P.(C) 10424/2016 & CM Nos. 40907-08/2016 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ Petitioner

Through: Ms. Biji Rajesh and Mr. G. Kanth, Advocates. GEETA AND ANR Versus Through: Mr.Rahul Sharma Bhatt, Advocates No.2. ..... Respondent and Mr. C.K. for Respondent + W.P.(C) 10465/2016 & CM Nos. 41016-17/2016 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ Petitioner

Through: Ms. Biji Rajesh and Mr. G. Kanth, Advocates. Versus SHAKUNTALA AND ANR. Through: Mr.Rahul Sharma Bhatt, Advocates No.2. ........ RESPONDENTS

and Mr. C.K. for Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

(oral) CM Nos. 40908/2016 (in W.P.(C) No.10424/2016) & 41017/2016 (in W.P.(C) No.10465/2016) (both for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed off. WP(C) No.10424 & 10465 of 2016 Page 1 of 3 W.P.(C) 10424/2016 & CM No.40907/2016 and W.P.(C) 10465/2016 & CM No.41016/2016 These petitions have been filed challenging the recovery proceedings 1. dated 01.02.2016 initiated by respondent No.2 pursuant to an Award having been passed on 01.05.2015 by the learned Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No.156/2014.

2. Ms. Biji Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that no monies are payable to the respondents through the recovery proceedings, as per the aforesaid Award dated 01.05.2015, hence, the same are mis-directed and vitiated. She submits that the Award itself only directs payment of such monies as may be due. Since the Award has not specified the exact amount, then the amounts cannot be computed under the recovery proceedings which are more in the nature of a cyclostyled letter being issued not only in the aforesaid cases but in many other cases too, where recovery proceedings arise out of the aforesaid Award.

3. Mr. Rahul Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears on receipt of advance copy of the writ petition, submits that although vide the impugned Award, the petitioners were granted two month’s time to file their computation apropos such monies, as may be payable to the workmen, they did not comply with the same. The recovery proceedings are a result of such amounts as were computed by respondent No.2.

4. Ms. Biji Rajesh further submits that in W.P.(C) No.9752/2016 titled ‘North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Ranbir & Anr.’ and W.P.(C) No.9759/2016 titled ‘North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Kaushalya Devi & Anr.’, the petitioner management has already deposited such monies WP(C) No.10424 & 10465 of 2016 Page 2 of 3 the petitioner be permitted to submit into the account of workmen as was payable to them and this Court has issued notices in those writ petitions. The petitioner seeks one last opportunity to furnish the requisite details and computation of amounts apropos its about 1900 workmen, who are affected by the aforesaid Award. She submits that, therefore, it would be appropriate that instead of individual Recovery Certificates being issued against the petitioner for each of the workmen, its computation to respondent No.2, who would examine the matter and payments would then be effected or recovery proceedings, if necessary could then be initiated.

5. In view of the above, let the petitioner file its computation apropos all the workmen within a period of four weeks before respondent No.2, who will decide the matter within ten weeks thereafter, after due notice to the parties.

6. shall be kept in abeyance.

7. above terms.

8. 9. parties. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the In the interim, the recovery proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 The writ petitions and the pending applications are disposed off in the NOVEMBER07 2016 sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

WP(C) No.10424 & 10465 of 2016 Page 3 of 3


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //